• Assets in a down state should not continue maintenance progression
o When an asset is intentionally placed in a down state, preventive maintenance schedules, inspections, and related work should not continue to progress against that asset. Examples such as standby boilers that are not being used and therefore should not require the same maintenance activities as active equipment.
• False maintenance and inspection records
o If the system continues generating inspections while an asset is down, technicians may complete inspections that were not actually required or performed on active equipment. As such, inspection records become permanent records and can create inaccurate maintenance histories.
• Regulatory compliance risk
o Maintenance and inspection records are often subject to review by regulators. In industries such as transportation and industrial operations, inaccurate inspection histories could create compliance issues because organisations may be unable to prove the correct maintenance activities were performed on active assets.
• Legal and litigation exposure
o Scenarios where equipment is intentionally downed due to accidents, investigations, insurance claims, or regulatory holds. If the system automatically treats the asset as active, users could mistakenly return the asset to service, potentially creating legal liability and issues during litigation or discovery processes.
• Trust in system data
o A major theme was that operators and technicians need to trust the system's status indicators. Users should be able to rely on a "down" status to drive appropriate behaviour. If the system behaves inconsistently, users lose confidence in the data and workflows.