Reporting Process

Date 12-10-2015 22:45

Ivy,

WELCOME TO THE AWS WELDING FORUM!!

Legally, ethically, or technically?? :eek:

It comes down to wording and many other perspectives. You said "can". Sure, they CAN. They have a pen or computer file of the report and CAN do anything.

What are the repercussions if any? Total liability in every legal aspect. Falsifying a report that may be a legal document, all depends upon who the NDE was done for, who reports were submitted to, what the purpose of the NDE and report was, what code was applicable for the work, what the contract documents said about inspections and/or special inspections, and so much more.

Bottom line, only a fool would change someone else's report. Even if a company wants their techs to submit reports to the office only and then the office reviews them prior to sending them out, if there is a mistake they need to send it back to the inspector/technician for correction. If it ever went to court and the inspector walks in and takes the stand with a report that differs from what is submitted by the owner/engineer/local building authority as well as the inspection agency then things are going south really fast. And people who have changed anything just lost all respect as a viable, truthful, witness.

He Is In Control, Have a Great Day, Brent

By Duke

Date 12-11-2015 00:50

My reports are digitally signed,and the verification locks the report. I may be naive enough to think that no one can change it at that point, but I'm sure it would leave tracks. I had a PM add hand written comments to a printed copy of one of my reports, without saying anything to me about it, and you can believe that I had something to say to him.

By Tyrone

Date 12-11-2015 12:01

Hey Ivy,
Just to clarify. Your "Customer" is internal to your company?

The original technician does not need to adjust it, but that person takes full responsibility of the document.

Brent hit the nail on the head with his points. If we see mark-ups of any sort on a report, we ask for the report to be officially resubmitted.

Tyrone

By js55

Date 12-11-2015 13:38

Perhaps we need to clarify.
A change is not necessarily a falsification.
And not all information is equal in importance.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 12-11-2015 22:51

While overall I believe I agree with your clarification/definition of terms, once the inspector submits his report, for anyone else to modify it is falsifying it.

It is my responsibility and mine alone to make any corrections if I have made some form of mistake; wording, spelling, misunderstood procedure that I then need to correct how I reported on it. It is MY report and stands as gospel unless I change it. I may look like a fool but my report is to be taken as the document of record until I make any changes that may be deemed appropriate. No one but the submitting inspector knows if there may have been very good reason for statements being made in the exact fashion used.

Just my personal two tin pennies worth on legal documents.

Brent

By 803056

Date 12-12-2015 00:52

This has little to do with D1.1 or ASME, but when working to a military standard, any and all changes to a lab report must be done by the issuing laboratory and the revision change to reflect a change was made.

Clearly, the change may have to be made by someone other than the person that wrote the report. How would we handle changes if the originator was fired, quit, or passed away? The person responsible for making the change should be the individual that signs the report and he should assume responsible for the accuracy of the change.

Al

By js55

Date 12-14-2015 14:55

To clarify my point let me illustrate.
Lets say you have a radiographic readersheet that has been completed and signed and verified and is in your file. You are in the process of putting together your document package to a customer that is screaming at you because they cannot run gas through the line unless they have ALL documents in their possession. You notice that on the readersheeet the dyslexic radiographer wrote welder 23 instead of welder 32 (of which there is no welder 23), which is not only verified by at last two other documents that you have generated but by your program the radiographers information itself is generated from your documentation. So, in essence YOU are the source of the information being changed. However, your radiographer is now 400 miles away and in the field with no suitable electronic access so requiring his anointing is impractical at this time.
Now, understanding the argument for stringent control, I personally see no problem with making the change to move forward as long as who made the change is identified and the time is identified as well (initial and dating). There simply is no reason to be so anal retentive over documentation that reasonable judgment such as this cannot be made as long as you are in compliance with the Code and your program.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 12-14-2015 15:00

In cases similar to your description I have issued a 'Supplementary' report to clarify either misinformation, misspelled words, etc. I do not attempt to change, modify, or alter the original report even when it is mine. I have felt that was too confusing trying to get the earlier submitted report taken out of the system and replaced by the corrected one so just entered in an additional report to clear up any confusion and correct my or a coworkers mistakes.

Brent