WORKFLOWS / KNOWLEDGE & DESIGN
Facade Inspection Reports | Separate Candidates from Verdicts
A list of anomaly candidates alone won't let the client act. Bring together the location, the evidence, how it was verified, and what remains unknown.
Read this page in order
How to structure a single finding
| Item | Example content |
|---|---|
| Target | Building, facade face, zone, position in the image |
| Observation | Description of the phenomenon visible in the image |
| Candidate class | Candidate for a crack, spalling, thermal-image anomaly, etc. |
| Evidence | Original, crop, capture conditions |
| Verification | Verifier, date, cross-check method, result |
| Open issues | Uninterpretable, follow-up inspection, limits of use |
Separate observation from inference. "There is a temperature difference" and "there is delamination" are not the same sentence. When the report is used for periodic reporting (Japan's Building Standards Act Article 12) or similar, confirm the applicable method, responsible person and standards for the assessment and the report.
Source: MLIT (Japan's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism) | Periodic reporting system and facade inspectionMake AI candidates verifiable
If you use AI, store the model version, the input data, the position of each candidate and the verification result. Showing a number called "confidence" isn't enough. Unless users know what the value means and under what conditions it was evaluated, they will mistake it for a probability.
| Status | Next step |
|---|---|
| Unverified candidate | Send to a reviewer |
| Needs follow-up verification | Assign an inspection method and an owner |
| Verified | Lock the verifier and the evidence |
| Candidate rejected | Record the reason for rejection |
| Uninterpretable | Report the missing conditions and the affected area |
A report order the client can use
- 1. Purpose, scope, method and conditions of the inspection.
- 2. Conclusions, and the range within which they can be relied on.
- 3. Location map of findings and the supporting images.
- 4. Areas not verified or unknown.
- 5. Items to hand on to follow-up inspection or repair planning.
If you assign priorities, also state the criteria and who assigned them. Don't declare something dangerous just because it shows up red. This is the document the client uses to decide what to do, so make the unknowns easy to find too.
Keep a revision history
When you revise a report, create a new version that carries the reason for the change and the approver. Even if the underlying findings change after delivery, the structure must keep the delivered version's contents unchanged.
Finding v2 → Review record → Report v1.1
report_version: 1.1
supersedes: 1.0
change_reason: "Corrected zone mapping"
approved_by: reviewer_id
published_at: timestamp
evidence_snapshot: immutable_referenceDEFINITION OF DONE
When you build it, check these.
- AI candidates and verified findings can be told apart at a glance.
- Every finding in the report links back to its evidence and verification history.
- A previously delivered report version can be reproduced with identical content.
Design checklist items for spec reviews and functional testing.
Check the sources
Explanations of regulations and definitions refer to the material below. Screens, data and the definition of done are our own design proposals.
- MLIT | Periodic reporting system and facade inspectionPositioning of infrared inspection and the guidelines
Sources checked on September 30, 2026. For your specific case, please confirm against the latest official information.