Anonymized samples

Sample findings

These are anonymized sample findings from pre-launch test documents. Names, values, and identifiers have been changed. They show the format and the kind of issue each review looks for.

Every finding includes

Built to be checked

Checklist ID

The check that produced it.

Severity

Critical, significant, observation, or information.

Source

The exact page, sheet, or table in your document.

Action

What to do next. It never calls for a redesign.

Code is cited only from your upload

No upload, no article numbers. The review never quotes code from memory.

A report with no findings is not a clearance

Reports say what a document shows and fails to show. They never approve anything.

Findings by product

24 shown · 15 critical · 6 significant · 3 observation

Arc Flash Study Review

Anonymized samples from pre-launch test documents. Names, values, and identifiers have been changed.

Download the full sample report (PDF): Arc flash study, 50 pages, 26 findings

AF-ELEC-03

high confidenceCritical

One electrode configuration used for every bus

All of the roughly 90 rows in the incident energy report use the VCB electrode configuration. The facility includes switchboards, transfer switches, UPS modules, PDUs and 208 V panelboards, which do not share one electrode arrangement. The uniform value is likely an unrevised software default.

Source: Source: Appendix F, Incident Energy Report, Electrode Config column
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Assign electrode configuration per bus from the actual equipment and re-run.

Electrode configuration is a direct input to incident energy, so this one column affects every result in the study.

AF-RES-01

high confidenceCritical

Arcing current higher than bolted fault current at one bus

One 0.23 kV row reports 0.491 kA bolted and 0.533 kA arcing. Arcing current cannot exceed bolted fault current at the same bus. The next row reports 1.694 kA bolted and 1.259 kA arcing, the expected order, so the error appears limited to this row. Its result is 2.6 cal/cm² with a 31.2 in boundary.

Source: Source: Attachment A, Incident Energy Tabulation
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Re-derive the row. The incident energy and boundary for that bus follow from it.

The study was sealed and issued with this row, and the label for that equipment was printed from it.

AF-MODEL-01

high confidenceCritical

IEEE 1584 edition and short-circuit method not stated

The report does not name the arc flash model, the IEEE 1584 edition, or the short-circuit method behind its results. Without them, the inputs the study had to declare and the applicability limits that apply cannot be determined.

Source: Source: methodology narrative; assumptions list; software settings appendix
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Ask the study author to state the model and IEEE 1584 edition, the short-circuit method, and the software and version used.

Every other check in a study review depends on these two statements.

AF-TIME-03

high confidenceCritical

A 37-second trip time capped at a 2-second arc time

Two 0.23 kV rows report trip times of 36.842 s and 6.713 s, with the arc time capped at 2 s. The cap assumes a worker can move away within 2 seconds, and the work positions are inside wind turbines, where egress is limited.

Source: Source: §4 Basis of Analysis; Attachment A, low-voltage rows
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Evaluate egress at these work positions. If a worker cannot leave within 2 seconds, use the uncapped result.

The 2-second cap is the largest single assumption in that study.

AF-RES-04

high confidenceCritical

Executive summary omits one of four buses above 40 cal/cm²

The summary names three locations above 40 cal/cm². The results table shows four (99.6, 72.4, 71.3 and 60.8 cal/cm²), and the 71.3 cal/cm² bus, the third highest, is not mentioned in the summary.

Source: Source: §1.3.3 Arc Flash Results; Appendix C Arc Flash Evaluation table
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Correct the summary to name all four buses and state how the omitted one is handled.

An omission in the summary can carry into the operation and maintenance (O&M) manual and then into a work permit.

AF-GEOM-03

high confidenceCritical

No working distance in any results table

None of the results tables gives a working distance. Incident energy without its working distance cannot be compared to a PPE arc rating or transferred to a label.

Source: Source: §10 Attachments 6–9, results tables
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Add working distance to every row of the results tables.

The narrative says the labels carry working distance; the calculation output does not.

Label & PPE Boundary Review

Two label sets: 97 labels from one facility and 5 from a PDU lineup. Neither came with the study behind it, which is why the highest-value check in this product (study versus label) could not run on either.

Download the full sample report (PDF): Label set, 97 labels, 12 findings

LB-PPE-02

high confidenceCritical

Labels above 40 cal/cm² say "Appropriate PPE Required"

Forty-one of 97 labels show incident energy above 40 cal/cm², the highest at 130.8 cal/cm² (480 V, 337 in boundary). They carry the same "Appropriate PPE Required" text as the low-energy labels, which contradicts the DANGER signal word.

Source: Source: 41 of 97 labels; highest at 130.8 cal/cm²
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Change the text on these labels to prohibit energized work, and refer these buses back to the study.

Nearly half the set, on the highest-energy equipment, directs a worker to select PPE where PPE is not adequate protection.

LB-CONT-05

high confidenceSignificant

One equipment tag uses a different site prefix

One label's site prefix differs by one character from the prefix on every other label. Its position in the sequence shows it belongs to the same equipment family.

Source: Source: p. 24, Location field
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Correct the label and confirm the study row and one-line tag match.

A one-character error breaks the link between the label, the study row and the one-line.

LB-CONS-01

high confidenceSignificant

Each label carries two conflicting PPE statements

Every label says "Appropriate PPE Required" in the header and "No Arc-rated PPE Required" in the data block, and also lists a glove class. The labels do not explain that the second statement refers to the arc flash hazard only.

Source: Source: all labels in the set, header and PPE line
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Reword so the "no arc-rated PPE" statement clearly applies to the arc flash hazard only.

The values were not in question. The defect was in the wording, and it was on every label.

NEC Focused Drawing Pre-Check

Two drawing sets, both reviewed without a code document. In that case the engine runs in degrade mode: it does not cite a code article it has not been given, and its findings are reported as general engineering observations.

Download the full sample report (PDF): Issue-for-construction set, 16 sheets, 18 findings

NEC-SET-01

high confidenceCritical

Three notes disagree on grounding conductors for one parallel feeder

Two notes and the grounding detail call for one equipment grounding conductor (EGC) in each of two parallel raceways. A third note, on the sheet that carries the feeder notes, reads as a single EGC.

Source: Source: single-line notes sheet; grounding and bonding detail sheet
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Reword the single-line note to match the grounding detail.

An installer working from that sheet could pull one EGC in only one raceway.

NEC-SET-09

high confidenceSignificant

Every title block field is blank

Customer, project, drawing number, drawn-by and checked-by are empty on every sheet. Only the revision field is filled in, and the sheets carry several revisions plus hand markups.

Source: Source: title block on every sheet
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Fill in the title blocks, or send the controlled version of the set.

Without drawing control there is no way to confirm the sheets in hand are current.

NEC-SET-11

high confidenceSignificant

Issued for construction while its fault current data is marked preliminary

The sheet marks eight equipment ratings PASS against the available fault current. A note on the same sheet says updated fault current calculations will be provided before construction, and the PASS results are not marked provisional.

Source: Source: fault current sheet, general notes 1 and 2, and the revision block
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Mark the PASS results as provisional and state who updates them and when.

Deferring the study is common. Not marking the results as provisional is the problem.

Coordination & Selectivity Review

Two studies. This engine does not give a selectivity verdict. It flags device pairs whose declared settings need checking against manufacturer curves, and says so in every finding.

Download the full sample report (PDF): Coordination study, 52 pages, 16 findings

CO-OVL-03

medium confidenceCritical

Instantaneous enabled on both breakers of a series pair at 8000 A

Both breakers have instantaneous enabled at 8000 A, and 29,087.51 A is available at the bus, roughly 3.6 times that pickup. A load-side fault can exceed both pickups. The study narrative does not mention it.

Source: Source: Appendix B, series-breaker TCC settings; one-line bus fault current
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Verify this pair first against the manufacturer curves at the available fault current.

The study reported one coordination concern. This review flagged four more in the same appendix.

CO-RAT-01

high confidenceCritical

Rating conclusion covers assumed ratings

The summary states all equipment is properly rated. The assumptions say panels without data were given industry-minimum ratings and that disconnects that could not be safely opened were assumed to have 100 kA fuses. Assumed and observed ratings are not separated.

Source: Source: Executive Summary; Assumptions and Clarifications; Appendix C
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Tag every device with an assumed rating and limit the conclusion to verified devices.

The assumed 100 kA rating is non-conservative and applies to the equipment least likely to have been checked.

Method of Procedure (MOP) Review

One draft method of procedure with its drawings. This engine cross-checks the procedure against the drawing and against itself, and asks seven fixed questions on every submission that no document review can answer.

Download the full sample report (PDF): Draft MOP, 35 steps, 36 findings

MOP-BO-02

high confidenceCritical

Back-out does not reverse most of the forward work

The forward sequence makes 14 distinct changes. The back-out restores wiring and one breaker only. The wiring was cut, not disconnected, and the back-out calls for no replacement conductor.

Source: Source: §3 forward steps compared with §5 back-out steps
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Rewrite the back-out as a device-by-device reversal and confirm replacement conductor is on site.

The back-out section exists, but it would not return the equipment to its starting state.

MOP-XREF-01

high confidenceCritical

MOP and drawing disagree on where the 4000 A utility breaker is

The MOP places the utility breaker in section A2. The drawing places it in A1, with the generator breaker in A2. Two steps direct work on the utility breaker.

Source: Source: MOP equipment summary; drawing section schedule
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Confirm the location at the equipment before this MOP is used.

A crew following the MOP would go to the generator breaker.

MOP-XREF-02

high confidenceCritical

Four conductors removed with no stated purpose

One step removes eight conductors. Four are never reinstalled or mentioned again, and nothing says what they fed.

Source: Source: removal step, traced through the rest of the procedure
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: State what each removed conductor serves and confirm its removal is intended.

If any of them is a live circuit outside the scope, this is the finding that catches it.

MOP-STEP-04

high confidenceCritical

Safe Stop Point defined, never used

The footer defines "SSP = Safe Stop Point", but none of the 35 steps is marked SSP. The only hold point comes after all physical work is done.

Source: Source: footer legend; all 35 steps
Code ref: not available (reported as a general engineering observation)
Action: Mark Safe Stop Points, at minimum before the conductor removal step.

The legend shows the author intended hold points. None were placed.

Power Quality Analysis

A two-day recording from a PMI meter at a customer service, with no single-line diagram and no fault current given. The report tests every IEEE 519 row, classifies each event, and closes with an interpretation tied to the reported tripping.

Download the full sample report (PDF): PMI recording, 47 hours, 7 findings

PQ-I-02

high confidenceSignificant

Harmonic current above IEEE 519 in every ISC/IL row

The utility fault current was not given, so every row of the IEEE 519 tables was tested. TDD had a 95th percentile of 13.6 % and a highest 1-hour value of 20.7 % of IL. That is above the limits in every row, so the answer does not depend on the fault current.

Source: Source: two-day recording at the service, current THD and rms current
Code ref: limit applied from the cited standard to the measured values
Action: Find the loads drawing the harmonic current, and confirm IL from 12 months of billing demand.

Without the fault current, a TDD result is usually "it depends". Here it does not.

PQ-E-01

high confidenceObservation

Three interruptions in two days, and swells that look like meter removal

21 rms events were recorded: 2 sustained and 1 temporary interruption, and 18 one-cycle swells on one phase reaching 114 % of nominal. The swells all fall in the last minutes of the recording, when the meter is usually removed. None fell outside the ITIC curve.

Source: Source: meter event records, classified by IEEE 1159 Table 2
Code ref: limit applied from the cited standard to the measured values
Action: Compare the event times with the times equipment tripped or reset.

The interruptions can explain the reported tripping. The swells may be the meter, not the supply.

PQ-V-01

high confidenceObservation

Voltage above Range A for part of the recording

Ten-minute average voltage reached 105.2 % of the 120 V nominal. It was outside ANSI C84.1 Range A for 3.4 % of the recording and stayed inside Range B.

Source: Source: 10-minute averages, intervals holding events left out
Code ref: limit applied from the cited standard to the measured values
Action: Note when the high readings occur and compare with load and utility switching.

Range B is allowed, but it should be limited in extent and frequency.

Transformer DGA Analysis

Two transformers on one routine lab report, plus a second lab's retest of both. Both units jumped on the same day; the retest did not repeat it. The report puts the suspect samples first and trends the rest.

Download the full sample report (PDF): Two units, 16 samples, 2 labs, 19 findings

DGA-QA-04

high confidenceCritical

Two transformers gave near-identical results on the same day

All nine gases from both units were within 12 % of each other on one sample date: ethylene 607 and 618 ppm, acetylene 7 ppm in each. Two units with different histories rarely produce the same gases.

Source: Source: lab report 1, both units, same sample date
Code ref: published DGA methods applied to the lab values
Action: Urgently have a different testing agency or technician take the next samples from both units.

A jump in two unrelated units on the same day points to the samples, not the transformers.

DGA-QA-01

high confidenceSignificant

Fault gas jump not repeated by a second lab

Ethylene went 2 → 607 → 2 ppm and acetylene 0 → 7 → 0 across the prior sample, the jump, and a second lab's retest 17 days later. A real fault rarely clears without oil processing. The sample is left off the trend graphs and out of every rate, but stays in the tables.

Source: Source: lab report 1 and lab report 2, unit 1 history
Code ref: published DGA methods applied to the lab values
Action: Treat it as likely contaminated, and have a licensed PE review it before it is discounted.

Read alone, the jump calls for an outage. The retest says otherwise.

DGA-AIR-02

high confidenceObservation

High oxygen in a nitrogen-blanketed unit

O2/N2 is 0.33, above 0.2, and oxygen has stayed above 23,000 ppm for a year. Air may be getting into the oil or into the samples.

Source: Source: unit 2 history, O2 and N2 columns
Code ref: published DGA methods applied to the lab values
Action: Check the nitrogen supply, bladder, gaskets and pressure relief, and how samples are drawn.

Oxygen speeds up oil and paper aging.

Not shown here

What real reports also include

Dropped findings

Any finding whose citation cannot be confirmed is removed, not reworded.

Checks that found nothing

Listed with a reason, so a pass and a could-not-run look different.

Refusals

The wrong kind of document is refused at intake. No report, no charge.

These are anonymized samples from pre-launch test documents, shown to illustrate format and substance. They are not a promise of what any particular document will produce. Ohmics is a product of PEFG, PLLC. Every report is an automated preliminary screening — not a stamped engineering review, not a compliance determination, and not the creation of an engineer-client relationship. All findings must be verified by the Engineer of Record.

See what each product checks Pricing