14.1 Quantitative Report Content Requirements

A thermogram without a complete report is only a picture. Level II certification expects you to produce quantitative reports: documents in which temperatures, deltas, priorities, and recommendations can be audited against known conditions and camera settings. This section lists the required content fields, explains why each field exists, and draws a bright line between Level II quantitative deliverables and Level I qualitative work.

Why Report Completeness Is a Safety Control

Severity systems in Chapter 8 (NETA-style ΔT bands, absolute OEM/ANSI limits, ISO machinery zones, ASHRAE envelope criteria) are only as good as the metadata that justifies them. A Priority 1 on a lug with no equipment ID, no load, and default emissivity cannot be executed safely by operations. Courts, insurers, and internal reliability reviews treat the signed report as the organization’s thermal condition statement—the same seriousness as Chapter 13 sign-off.

Minimum Header Block: Who, Where, When, With What

Every quantitative report needs a stable header (cover or first page) that answers basic provenance questions before any finding table appears.

Exam mindset: “FLIR camera” is not a model/serial. Quantitative reports name the specific instrument used for the numbers people will act on.

Conditions Block: Load, Process, and Environment

Quantitative severity is condition-dependent. Electrical contractor-convention priorities in this guide assume meaningful load (about ≥40% of rated where applicable). Mechanical and building surveys need analogous condition notes.

If conditions are inadequate for standard priorities (low electrical load, envelope ΔT too small, roof surveyed in wind > site limit), the report must qualify findings or schedule re-inspection—not invent a full Priority map.

Radiometric Parameter Block (Per Survey or Per Image)

Level II reports must state the five core camera parameters plus window transmittance when an IR window is in the optical path:

Best practice is to record parameters in the radiometric file and echo them in the finding table or appendix so a PDF-only reader still sees them. Global defaults (“ε = 0.95 everywhere”) are acceptable only when surfaces truly match; mixed metal/paint routes need per-target or per-class documentation.

Finding-Level Quantitative Fields

For each anomaly (and, for high-value routes, for key normals used as baselines), capture:

Priority map (recall)

Experience-Based criteria, Infraspection Standard §10.1 — relative ΔT versus a similar component under similar load, P1 most severe:

Absolute OEM or code limits can override a mild relative band. Building and machinery findings use their own criteria (Chapters 8, 9, 10) but still need the same identity, condition, and parameter package.

Recommendations: Closing the Loop

A quantitative report that stops at “hot” fails the purpose of inspection. Recommendations should be specific, prioritized, and feasible:

1. What to do (torque, replace, clean, rebalance, reseal, re-insulate, re-inspect under load).
2. How urgent (aligned to Priority / absolute risk—not vague “ASAP” for everything).
3. What to verify after repair (post-repair IR, contact check, load test).
4. What remains open (locked rooms, low load, weather-limited envelope).

Level II Quantitative vs Level I Qualitative Reports

Both levels produce valuable work, but the claim strength differs.

Honest hybrid: A Level I may capture excellent images that a Level II promotes to quantitative status only after parameters, load, identity, and severity are verified (Chapter 13). Conversely, Level II may intentionally issue a qualitative-only statement when geometry, windows, or access prevent trustworthy radiometry—label it qualitative rather than inventing fake precision.

Report Structure That Survives Audit

A practical Level II template order:

1. Cover / header — client, site, dates, personnel, camera serials, scope statement
2. Executive summary — count of findings by Priority; top P1/P2 actions; major limitations
3. Methodology — standards referenced (NETA-style bands, ISO, ASHRAE as used), load policy, parameter policy
4. Findings table — one row per anomaly with all quantitative fields
5. Image appendix — paired IR + visual (Section 14.2)
6. Open items / limited scope — incomplete coverage, low load, weather
7. Signatures — author and Level II reviewer when applicable

Worked Completeness Checks

Scenario A — Missing load. Finding table shows 28 °C ΔT, Priority 2, no amps. Level II either obtains load from operations logs for that timestamp or withdraws standard Priority language until re-inspected ≥40% load.

Scenario B — Full quantitative row. Client ACME Plant 3; MCC-2 Bucket 7 A-phase; 2026-08-12 14:22; 62% FLA; camera model X serial Y; ε = 0.95 on painted lug, RAT 24 °C foil method, T_atm 23 °C, RH 45%, d = 1.5 m; T_meas 71 °C, sister phase 48 °C, ΔT 23 °C → P2; recommend planned outage repair within 24–72 h per site policy; re-IR after torque.

Scenario C — Qualitative honesty. HV yard through unknown aged window, τ unknown, no safe tape access. Report: pattern shows A-phase bushing warmer than B/C; qualitative only; schedule outage for contact/window-corrected quantitative pass.

Common Traps

Summary for Recall

Level II quantitative reports bind identity, time, conditions, camera, radiometric parameters, temperatures, ΔT, severity, and recommendations into one auditable package. Client and equipment IDs prevent wrong-target work; load and environment make electrical and envelope priorities valid; ε/RAT/atm/RH/distance/τ make numbers real; Priority and recommendations turn data into maintenance. Level I qualitative reports may flag patterns without full radiometric defense; Level II either completes that defense or explicitly limits the claim. Incomplete fields are not cosmetic gaps—they are reasons to qualify, re-inspect, or refuse a full clean bill of health.