The review question is not “Does this PDF look official?” It is “Can this result be tied to the purchased valve and independently checked against the contract?” A polished template with a stamp can still be incomplete. A plain report can be strong evidence if its identity and records are intact.
01 / Identity
Can the report be matched to the valve in the crate?
Begin with the purchase order and valve list, not the result column. Check the item or tag number, manufacturer, model or figure number, valve type, nominal size, pressure class, body material, end connection and unique serial number. Then compare those fields with the nameplate photograph, approved drawing, packing list and physical marking.
02 / Basis
Which document created the acceptance requirement?
Record the test standard, its edition, the product standard, the project specification and the manufacturer’s approved test-procedure revision. These are not interchangeable. A product standard can invoke a test standard; a project specification can add witness points, records or stricter conditions; the factory procedure explains how the requirement was implemented.
Contractual scope, precedence, additions and deviations.
Applicable design family and test requirements for the ordered configuration.
Sequence, setup, medium, safety controls, equipment and records.
Actual conditions, results, signatures, exceptions and release.
03 / Conditions
Could another inspector understand how the test was run?
For every required shell, backseat and closure test, the report should identify the medium, pressure, duration, pressure direction, valve position and result. Where temperature, water quality, air cleanliness, venting, seat configuration or a chart recorder matters, record it as well.
| Field | Why it matters | Typical incomplete entry |
|---|---|---|
| Test medium | Liquid and gas tests have different procedures, hazards and detection methods. | “Hydro/pneumatic” with no selected medium. |
| Pressure and time | Both are needed to compare the actual test with the requirement. | A pressure value with no duration. |
| Direction/seat | Shows which pressure path and seating surface were examined. | One closure result for a configuration requiring distinct directions. |
| Actual leakage | Supports quantitative acceptance when the standard requires measurement. | “Zero” without method, units or detection boundary. |
| Test date | Links the activity to calibration validity and production history. | A date added after release or inconsistent with the witness record. |
04 / Acceptance
“No leakage” needs a defined observation.
Confirm the applicable leakage criterion and the recorded result. For a shell test, the criterion may concern visible leakage or structural behaviour. For a closure test, the procedure may require observation, collection or measurement at a specified pressure and duration. The report should use the vocabulary and units of the controlling requirement.
Be cautious when the same exact result is repeated across many valves, test types and dates. Repeated zeros can be valid when the method is observation-based, but a copied result block, identical pressure trace or inconsistent handwriting should trigger a document query rather than an immediate allegation.
05 / Measurement
The calibration certificate must belong to the instrument used.
Match every pressure gauge, transducer and recorder ID on the report to its calibration certificate. Check that calibration was valid on the test date, the instrument range was suitable for the applied pressure, and the certificate identifies the equipment unambiguously. A generic annual calibration certificate for “pressure gauge” is not enough.
- Does the equipment ID match character for character?
- Was calibration valid on the test date?
- Is the working point sensible within the instrument range?
- Is the calibration provider and traceability basis identified?
- If a chart is required, is the chart tied to the valve and test step?
06 / Intervention
A signature has meaning only when the role and intervention point are clear.
Identify who performed the test, who reviewed it for the manufacturer, and whether the purchaser or third-party inspector attended. A hold point, witness point, surveillance activity and document review are different forms of purchaser intervention. “TPI approved” should not be inferred from a logo or an unrelated inspection release.
The 2025 IOGP/JIP33 S-611 quality framework is useful here: it separates hold, witness, surveillance and review activities and makes the level of purchaser intervention risk-based. That model belongs to its stated steel gate-valve procurement scope, but the document-control logic is broadly useful.
07 / Exceptions
A failed first test should leave a visible trail.
A final accepted result does not erase an earlier failure. The record package should link the nonconformance, technical disposition, repair or adjustment, any required reinspection, the retest and final release. If the contractual disposition requires purchaser acceptance, the concession or approval should be included.
- Finding
Observed leakage, pressure loss, structural indication or document mismatch.
- Containment
Valve identified and held; affected lot or related units assessed.
- Disposition
Repair, adjustment, reject or purchaser-approved concession under a controlled record.
- Verification
Required examination and full or partial retest performed to the approved basis.
- Release
Final status reflected in the manufacturing record book and shipping release.
Buyer close-out
Use a three-way match before acceptance.
Match the contract and valve list, the physical valve and markings, and the report/data-book records. If any one of the three disagrees, raise a document query and preserve the original files. Do not “correct” a supplier record locally and lose the audit trail.
Approved datasheet and drawing · valve list and serials · pressure-test procedure and report · instrument calibration · material traceability · nonconformance/concession history · inspection release · final data-book index.
Sources / editorial control
Source basis
- ISO 5208:2015 official scope page; accessed 16 August 2026.
- IOGP S-611 Steel Gate Valves (API 600), Version 2.0, including the PDS, IRS and QRS procurement structure; May 2025.
- IOGP S-611Q v2.0 Quality Requirements, CAS intervention and evidence framework.
Review limit: this is a buyer’s review method, not a substitute for the purchase order, licensed standard, approved ITP or inspector judgement. Hande has not yet published a factory-specific sample report package; capability claims will be added only after the underlying controlled records are reviewed.