Case study (anonymised)
Avoiding Unnecessary Offshore Rectification
Rectification decisions used design allowables that didn't account for 'as built' conditions or operational data. Uncertainty around anomaly interaction and environmental exposure led to risk-averse, potentially unnecessary interventions.
- Evidence packs designed for review forums
- Assumptions and thresholds recorded
- Outputs versioned for handover
Challenge
Rectification decisions used design allowables that didn't account for 'as built' conditions or operational data. Uncertainty around anomaly interaction and environmental exposure led to risk-averse, potentially unnecessary interventions.
Common failure mode
Decisions get made on screenshots and ad-hoc spreadsheets, with limited traceability back to source.
What “good” looks like
A pack you can rerun: inputs, checks, assumptions, change log, and publishable outputs.
Inputs and context
Representative sources used during delivery.
Approach
Typical delivery steps, designed to be repeatable and reviewable.
01Internal inspection features correlated with seabed interaction, spans, and material properties
02ROV video and survey data synchronized to KP for contextual validation
03Integrity assessments rerun using consistent assumptions and thresholds
Outcomes
Observable outcomes, without over-claiming.
Multi-million cost avoidance by eliminating unnecessary rectification
Reduced offshore vessel days and operational disruption
Improved confidence in rectification prioritization
Next step
Bring one asset, one decision, and one delivery deadline. We’ll show what an evidence pack looks like.
Request a consultationBrowse modulesWant a similar outcome?
Share your current sources and constraints. We’ll suggest a conservative first step focused on traceability and output quality.