Scenario
A facilities management provider oversees HVAC and fire safety system inspections across a portfolio of twelve managed commercial buildings. Compliance requires documented proof that every scheduled inspection was completed by a qualified technician, at the correct location, following the current maintenance procedure. Insurance renewals and regulatory audits demand complete, defensible inspection records — and paper checklists or generic digital forms do not provide sufficient evidence.
How the workflow runs
An inspection workflow configured in SealAudit follows the same trigger, verification, action, and audit pattern used across every SealAudit deployment.
- 1) Trigger: A technician scans a QR code posted on the HVAC or fire safety equipment. The scan opens the assigned maintenance inspection workflow for that building and equipment type.
- 2) Verification: The platform checks authenticated identity and, if enabled by policy and technician consent, verifies geolocation proximity to the building. Verification outcomes are recorded as pass, fail, bypass, or error.
- 3) Action: The technician reviews the current maintenance procedure document, completes a structured inspection checklist form covering system readings and condition notes, acknowledges the procedure requirements, and submits a check-in action.
- 4) Audit event: The system stores the outcome, timestamp, verification status, form responses, and references to the exact workflow version and maintenance document version. The facilities manager can search and export this record for regulatory audits, insurance renewals, and SLA reporting.
Compliance outcome
Every inspection creates a tamper-evident audit record referencing the workflow version and maintenance document version in effect at the time. When a regulatory auditor or insurance underwriter requests inspection proof, the facilities manager exports a complete record showing which technician completed the inspection, when, at which building, and which version of the maintenance procedure was followed.
The audit trail preserves form responses alongside version references, so reviewers can see exact system readings and condition notes from the time of inspection — not reconstructed from memory or a separate log. This supports SLA verification without relying on paper checklists or generic form tools that do not link output to a specific procedure version.