By the myPitLab team · Last updated 8 June 2026 · 5 min read
TL;DR
- Publishing without QA is how wrong inverts, missing photos and inconsistent sketches reach clients
- Good QA is a short, repeatable checklist — not a senior surveyor reading every field on 300 chambers
- Validation rules catch structural gaps; humans catch judgement calls (defect wording, ambiguous pipes)
- Publish should mean “approved for delivery,” not “uploaded from site”
- One QA standard across projects beats ad-hoc review per client
Key takeaways
- Separate draft (field sync) from published (client-visible) status
- Automate checks for missing inverts, pipe count, mandatory photos and cover level
- QA the sketch and the pipe table together — they must match
- Log who approved publish and when — frameworks increasingly ask for audit trails
- Re-open and republish should be rare and documented
In this article
- Why “synced” is not the same as “ready”
- Automated validation vs human review
- The 12-point QA checklist
- When to send back to the field
- Publish once, deliver everywhere
- Frequently asked questions
Introduction
Field teams finish fast. Clients judge you on what leaves the office. The gap between “data on the server” and “data the client trusts” is QA.
On MH/IC jobs, a single wrong invert propagates to CAD, hydraulic models and maintenance records. A missing geo-photo becomes a dispute six months later. A sketch that does not match the pipe table erodes confidence in the whole project.
myPitLab separates field capture from office validation and publish — PDF, DXF, KML and portal access only from approved records. Here is a checklist UK QA leads actually use.
Why “synced” is not the same as “ready”
When an inspection syncs from site, it is a draft in office terms. The surveyor did their job under time pressure. QA exists because:
- Pipe angles are easy to mis-tap on a phone in rain
- Cover level typos happen
- Photos attach to the wrong asset on busy multi-manhole days
- Sketches get rushed before backfilling
Publishing without review treats every draft as final. Framework clients notice patterns — and charge back rework.
Automated validation vs human review
Automate (rules engine):
- Mandatory fields blank
- Impossible geometry (pipe count zero, invert below invert of outlet without drop)
- Missing required photos (cover, chamber, direction of flow)
- Asset ID format vs project spec
- GPS missing on geo-photos where required
Human (2–3 minutes per chamber unless flagged):
- Defect descriptions clear and consistent
- Sketch matches pipe table
- Client-specific notes (e.g. rail possession refs)
- Judgement on edge cases (shared cover, abandoned pipe sealed)
Automation clears 70% of noise; humans focus on the 30% that needs experience.
The 12-point QA checklist
Use before clicking Publish:
- Asset ID matches site sketch and client schedule
- Cover level present and plausible vs surrounds
- All pipes have diameter, direction and invert
- Pipe table matches IC sketch
- Required geo-photos present and on correct asset
- Chamber depth / benching consistent with photos
- Defect codes use project dictionary
- Free-text notes spell-checked and professional
- Coordinates in correct CRS for project
- Inspection linked to correct project phase
- Previous visit comparison reviewed if repeat asset
- Approver name and timestamp recorded
For bulk jobs, sample 10% for full human review; run 100% through automated rules.
💡 Validate once, deliver everywhere myPitLab runs validation before publish — then generates PDF, DXF and portal access from the same approved record. Start free on myPitLab →
When to send back to the field
Send back when:
- Missing data cannot be inferred (invert, pipe size, cover level)
- Photos clearly wrong asset or unusable blur
- Sketch contradicts pipe table
Do not silently fix inverts in the office without field confirmation unless client spec allows office interpretation — that creates liability.
Use a clear status: Returned to field with a note the surveyor sees on next sync.
Publish once, deliver everywhere
After QA approval:
- PDF sheet for operators
- DXF/CAD for designers
- Portal for client self-service
- Audit log for framework evidence
Re-export should not require re-keying. If the client finds an error post-publish, reopen, fix, republish with version note.
Pair this with offline field capture so QA always reviews the same record the surveyor created on site.
Frequently asked questions
How long should QA take per chamber? Thirty seconds to two minutes when validation is clean; five to ten when sketch or pipes need correction.
Can the same person capture and approve? Avoid on framework jobs. Separation of duties is a common client audit question.
What if the client wants QA sign-off on every sheet? Use bulk approve with filters (only records passing all rules) plus sample audit by a senior surveyor.
Does QA slow delivery? It speeds net delivery by cutting client rejections and CAD rework. Measure reject rate before and after formal QA.
Summary
MH/IC QA before publish is the cheapest insurance on a drainage or utility job. Automate structural checks, human-review judgement, then publish once to every channel the client expects.
Next steps: Adopt the 12-point checklist on your next project gate. Browse all insights or start a free trial.
