The inspection report lists several findings. A few days later, the factory sends photographs and says, “Everything has been fixed. We can move on.”
The question is not merely whether work was done. It is whether that work resolved the original finding and whether the verification supports closing it.
Keep one continuous record: original finding, corrective work, verification basis, actual result and closure decision. “Handled” is not a substitute for the steps between them.
1. Define the finding before agreeing how to verify the correction
The original record should identify the machine, location, observation and requirement that was not met.
“Something is wrong here” is insufficient for planning a correction. “This component is damaged” should not be recorded as a confirmed cause if it is only a hypothesis.
Distinguish the roles: photographs document an observation; technical staff assess the cause; the factory performs the work; inspection personnel verify the outcome. Different people may perform these tasks, but their records should connect.
The scope of verification must suit the issue, risk and manufacturer's requirements. UK HSE guidance emphasises targeted inspections and competent personnel rather than an excessively broad checklist. It is cited here as a methodological reference, not a universal legal acceptance standard. HSE inspection guidance
For general inspection coverage, see the pre-shipment inspection guide. This article starts after a finding has already been recorded.
2. Follow one finding all the way to closure
The following is a hypothetical example. Machine and record identifiers illustrate the workflow; this is neither a customer case nor a universal test procedure.
A buyer orders scissor lift S-021 with an extension deck. Inspection finds that the extension-deck locking function does not meet the applicable model documentation. The finding is logged as F01.
The factory first supplies a close-up photograph after the work. It shows the component's appearance but does not establish that the locking function has been restored as required. F01 therefore still needs verification.
Corrective-work and reinspection record: the complete F01 workflow
| Stage | Action or result in this example | Evidence retained | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Record the finding | Identify S-021, the location, observed behaviour and applicable requirement | Original report; photograph P01 | Correction required |
| Agree correction and verification | Manufacturer's technical staff define investigation and corrective work; the parties agree the applicable verification method, personnel and records | Corrective-work statement C01; verification plan R00 | Awaiting implementation |
| Review the first evidence | Factory supplies photograph P02 after the work, without the agreed functional verification result | P02 and factory response | Work documented; verification incomplete |
| Complete the agreed reinspection | Agreed inspection personnel check identity and the relevant function using the applicable method, recording conditions and observations | Reinspection record R01 and corresponding images/video | In this example, the result meets the agreed requirements |
| Confirm closure | Designated decision-maker checks that R01 addresses F01 and retains the original and subsequent records | Closure record, person's name and date | F01 closed |
| Handle later authorisations separately | Review other open matters and confirm payment, packing or dispatch under the contract | Relevant authorisation or outstanding-task record | Closing F01 does not release the whole order automatically |
The crucial distinction is between the third and fourth rows: evidence that work was performed is not necessarily evidence that the original problem was resolved.
Limit the reinspection conclusion to the machine, items and conditions actually checked. It does not guarantee the machine's future condition.
Use a separate identifier for each finding. Retain the original observation, and never describe factory-supplied records as independently witnessed checks.
3. Communication tip: define the required reply before rework begins
Send a clear instruction early:
Please reply against the original finding numbers, stating the corrective work, evidence to be supplied and expected completion time for each. For items requiring functional reinspection, ask technical or quality staff to confirm the method and site preparation first. Please do not wait until the end and reply only “all fixed.”
The supplier can then distinguish items resolved through document checks from those requiring physical verification.
Before booking a return visit, have the site lead confirm access to the machine, personnel and necessary conditions. Do not discover on arrival that it is already packed or that the agreed checks cannot be performed.
Across languages, keep the report's original finding numbers and location references. Technical staff can explain the work in Chinese first, with sales coordinating translation. Preserving identifiers, machine identity and evidence links prevents different findings from being merged during translation.
4. What if evidence is still insufficient—or the problem recurs?
Explain the evidence gap rather than replying simply “rework again.”
For example:
P02 shows the appearance after the work, but F01 concerns the locking function. Please provide the agreed reinspection record linked to S-021. The item remains “awaiting verification.”
If the issue recurs during reinspection, record the actual result and ask technical staff to reassess the cause, corrective approach and affected scope. Do not merely request another video that makes the machine appear to work normally.
Where similar findings involve multiple units or a shared component, identify the potentially affected machines or parts before defining the inspection scope. Do not repair only the photographed unit—or reject the entire order without a basis.
Agree any additional visit costs and timing under the original engagement or a separate arrangement. Reinspection is not automatically free.
5. Technical closure, acceptance of a deviation and dispatch release are different decisions
Technical closure means verification was completed using the determined method and its result supports closure.
Acceptance of a deviation means the authorised buyer accepts a defined difference with its implications understood. It must not be rewritten as “restored to the original specification.” A commercial discount does not replace action required for safety or mandatory compliance.
Dispatch release also depends on other outstanding items and contractual conditions. Closing one finding does not confirm that all equipment, accessories and documents are ready for delivery.
Record the decisions separately. This avoids a factory interpreting acceptance of a photograph as permission to ship, and avoids requiring an inspector to make a commercial decision for the buyer.
The factory says it is fixed, but you are unsure what verification is missing?
Send Levantis the finding you are most concerned about and the supplier's corrective-work reply, and explain the current order stage. We can help identify missing evidence from China and discuss whether further documents, technical explanations or on-site reinspection are needed. You do not need a complete report to start the conversation.