Camera Inspection Review

The review questions in full

Rendered here as plain text so they are readable, printable, and usable without the tool above — a homeowner with an inspection report and a pen loses nothing.

• Does the inspection say whether the line was cleaned before or during it?
• Is the inspection date shown on the recording or stated in the report?
• Does it identify which access point the camera entered from?
• Does it explain the direction of travel?
• Are footage or distance markers visible on the recording?
• Was the line located above ground during or after the inspection?
• Are the conditions referred to in the report timestamped or marked in the footage?
• Can you tell which statements are observations and which are conclusions or recommendations?
• Were you given the full traversal, or only selected clips?
• Does it identify where the inspection ended, and why?
• Are any limitations on the inspection documented?
• Do you have a written summary as well as the footage?
• Is each recommended action tied to a specific piece of identified evidence?
• Does the report mention alternative explanations, or the limits of what it can conclude?
• Does it identify further evidence that would resolve an open question?

Why each question changes how the inspection reads

Does the inspection say whether the line was cleaned before or during it?

Footage through a line full of material shows the material. Footage after clearing shows the pipe. The same line can look very different in the two recordings, and a proposal priced against one of them should say which. If the answer is no or unclear: You do not yet know which of two quite different things you are looking at. This does not mean the inspection was performed badly. Ask: "Was the line cleaned before or during this inspection?"

Is the inspection date shown on the recording or stated in the report?

A dated record can be compared to a later one. An undated record cannot be placed in a sequence, which is most of its long-term value. If the answer is no or unclear: The record is harder to rely on later, particularly if a condition is disputed or if you sell the property. Ask: "What date was this inspection performed, and can that be confirmed in writing?"

Does it identify which access point the camera entered from?

The access point determines what the inspection could reach. Two inspections from different access points can cover almost none of the same pipe. If the answer is no or unclear: You cannot tell what section of the line this covers, and a second inspection cannot be aimed at the same place. Ask: "Which access point did the camera enter from?"

Does it explain the direction of travel?

Travelling toward the connection and travelling toward the building cover different pipe from the same starting point. If the answer is no or unclear: The coverage of the inspection is ambiguous even if the access point is known. Ask: "Which direction did the camera travel from that access point?"

Are footage or distance markers visible on the recording?

A distance reading is what lets an observation be discussed precisely and revisited by someone else. If the answer is no or unclear: Observations can only be described approximately, which makes a second opinion much harder to obtain. Ask: "Were distance readings recorded, and what point are they measured from?"

Was the line located above ground during or after the inspection?

Locating turns a distance inside the pipe into a position on your property, which is what determines access, restoration, and sometimes responsibility. If the answer is no or unclear: Nobody yet knows where along your property an observed condition sits. That is normal after an inspection alone. Ask: "Was a locate performed, and were route and depth recorded?"

Are the conditions referred to in the report timestamped or marked in the footage?

Without a timestamp or a distance, a statement in a report cannot be tied to a moment in the recording, and neither you nor a second professional can find it. If the answer is no or unclear: The written statements and the footage are effectively two separate documents. Ask: "For each condition in your report, at what distance or timestamp does it appear?"

Can you tell which statements are observations and which are conclusions or recommendations?

Observations can be checked by someone else. Recommendations are professional judgement built on top of them. Both are legitimate; treating the second as the first is where most confusion starts. If the answer is no or unclear: You cannot tell which parts of the document a second professional could address directly. Ask: "Which statements here describe what you saw, and which describe what you recommend?"

Were you given the full traversal, or only selected clips?

A selected clip is chosen. That is not necessarily improper — it is often just convenient — but a clip cannot tell you about the parts that were not selected. If the answer is no or unclear: You cannot tell what the rest of the inspected length looked like. Ask: "Can I have the complete original recording, not an edited version?"

Does it identify where the inspection ended, and why?

Everything beyond the end point is uninspected. Whether the camera reached the connection or stopped part-way is the difference between a partial and a complete picture. If the answer is no or unclear: You do not know how much of your line remains unobserved. Ask: "How far did the camera reach, what stopped it, and what remains uninspected?"

Are any limitations on the inspection documented?

Standing water, debris, a fitting the camera could not pass — all of these limit what a lens can see, and a report that states them is more useful than one that does not. If the answer is no or unclear: You cannot tell whether the absence of an observation means anything. Ask: "What limited what you could see, and where?"

Do you have a written summary as well as the footage?

A written document ties statements to a date and an author. A verbal explanation does not survive a disagreement. If the answer is no or unclear: What you were told exists only as your recollection of it. Ask: "Can I have your findings in writing?"

Is each recommended action tied to a specific piece of identified evidence?

A recommendation tied to an observation at a location can be evaluated. A recommendation tied to a general impression cannot. If the answer is no or unclear: You cannot tell which part of the proposed work addresses which observation. Ask: "Which specific observation does each part of the recommended work address?"

Does the report mention alternative explanations, or the limits of what it can conclude?

An inspection that acknowledges what it cannot establish is generally being more careful, not less confident. If the answer is no or unclear: The report reads as more certain than any inspection can be. That is worth noting, not treating as dishonesty. Ask: "What else could account for what you saw, and what would rule that out?"

Does it identify further evidence that would resolve an open question?

Knowing what would settle a question is what lets you spend the next amount of money usefully rather than defensively. If the answer is no or unclear: The open questions are unstated, which does not mean there are none. Ask: "What further evidence would change your recommendation?"