Interactive rating system for condition evaluation
Use the tables below to interpret Category and Priority ratings used throughout this report. Ratings determine severity and recommended response time.
| Category | Label | Definition | Strength | Remedial Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Excellent | No deterioration. Structure is safe for use. | 100% Original Strength | None |
| 1 | Good | Slight surface deterioration. Structure is safe for use. | 100% Original Strength | None |
| 2 | Fair | Some deterioration deeper than surface level. Structure is safe for use. | 95–100% Original Strength | Minor Works |
| 3 | Poor | Discernible deterioration. Some compromise in safety. | 75–95% Original Strength | Minor Works |
| 4 | Worse | Severe deterioration. Severe compromise in safety. | 50–75% Original Strength | Major Works |
| 5 | Severe | Severe deterioration. Total and complete compromise in safety. | <50% Original Strength | Major Works (Urgently) |
| Priority | Label | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Immediate | Action requires urgent, immediate attention. |
| 2 | 1 Year | Action to be done ASAP, and no later than 1 year from report date. |
| 3 | 3 Years | Action required within the next 3 years from report date. |
| X | At Use | Action must be completed before use of the non-critical service structure. |
| M | Monitor | Monitoring required to evaluate the extent of damage/deterioration with record keeping. |
Note: Scales can be customized per client/site standards.