API SIRE common mistakes
API SIRE · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Reusing a previous project's inspection and test plan without confirming the current purchase order, specification revision, and component criticality.
Schedule pressure and familiarity make a known plan feel safe, but hold points, acceptance criteria, and documentation requirements often differ between orders.
What to do instead
Build the plan from the current purchase order, drawings, and invoked code edition; list each requirement, hold/witness point, and required record; obtain approval before work begins.
Starting surveillance before confirming which specification and code edition, including addenda, the contract actually invokes.
Candidates often assume the latest edition applies or rely on the manufacturer's statement, while the purchase order may invoke an older edition or a specific addendum.
What to do instead
Verify the contractually invoked edition and addenda on the purchase order and drawings, record them in the inspection plan, and confirm the manufacturer's work instructions reference the same edition.
Accepting in-process records such as heat-treatment charts or NDE reports without witnessing the operation or independently sampling the recorded results.
Trust in the manufacturer's quality control and time constraints encourage desk review, even though complete records do not prove the operation was performed as recorded.
What to do instead
Assign hold or witness points based on criticality; observe parameter recording, verify chart identity and time stamps, and spot-check report entries against actual component markings.
Failing to check the calibration status, range, and accuracy of the manufacturer's measuring and test equipment.
Calibration is often assumed to be covered by the supplier's quality control, yet expired calibrations or an inappropriate range can invalidate dimensional and test results.
What to do instead
Review calibration certificates or stickers for due date, traceability, and range; compare the required tolerance with equipment accuracy; record equipment identifiers in the surveillance notes.
Allowing nonconforming material to remain unsegregated or permitting rework to proceed without an approved disposition.
Production pressure and focus on final acceptance encourage verbal instructions to fix items, which bypasses the nonconformance report system and leaves no verification trail.
What to do instead
Verify physical segregation and tagging, trace each nonconformance to an approved disposition, confirm re-inspection or retest after rework, and close the nonconformance before shipment.
Signing acceptance from a test report summary without reviewing raw data and the actual test conditions.
Summary sheets are convenient and time-saving, but pressure, temperature, duration, or test-medium deviations can be hidden in the underlying charts and instrument records.
What to do instead
Check raw charts and instrument records against the required test conditions, verify the test setup and calibration, and compare results directly with the specified acceptance criteria.
Confusing examination methods, required extent, and acceptance standards for the specified product.
Similar terminology across volumetric and surface methods, plus multiple referenced standards, leads candidates to apply a familiar method instead of the one the specification requires.
What to do instead
Create a matrix from the specification listing method, extent, technique, personnel qualification, acceptance standard, and record; verify each item before acceptance.
Leaving material traceability incomplete, with mill certificates not linked to heat numbers, lots, or installed components.
Documents arrive in batches and the final report is assembled late, so missing links are discovered only after components are covered or shipped.
What to do instead
Maintain a traceability matrix from receipt through installation; verify markings against certificates; record heat or lot numbers and component identifiers as work progresses.
Accepting verbal agreements or undocumented deviations from the specification.
Site communication is informal and schedule-driven, and memory fades; without a written basis the inspection report cannot justify the accepted condition.
What to do instead
Require a written, approved deviation or concession before proceeding; reference it in the inspection report; do not accept undocumented changes.
Treating a supplier's quality system certificate as proof of compliance without reviewing its scope, audit findings, or corrective actions.
Certificates are easy to file and appear authoritative, but the scope may exclude the product being inspected, or open corrective actions may affect quality.
What to do instead
Review the certificate scope, latest audit results, and corrective-action closure; verify the quality system covers the work; document the review in the surveillance record.