SIRE 2.0 Open Defect List: Avoid Negative Observations
A printed list of open defects is handed over at the start of a SIRE 2.0 inspection, and most of the anxiety around it comes from treating it as a confession. It is closer to the opposite. OCIMF’s position, as operators have had it relayed, is that where a proper defect management process has been followed the open items should not themselves produce negative observations. The findings come from the defect that was not on the list, and because one question is assessed across hardware, process and human factors, a single undisclosed item can cost you several entries rather than one.
SIRE 2.0 · Open defect list
One defect, one entry — or one defect, six observations
Defect management
Make the list a by-product of the system, not a document written the night before
The inspector is not reading the list to count problems. They are reading it as evidence about the management system behind it, and three things are being judged at once.
Does the ship know what is wrong with it?
A short list on an older vessel is not reassuring, it is implausible. The question behind the list is whether defects are being found, and a list that does not reflect the condition of the ship answers it badly.
Does each item have a decision behind it?
An open defect with a risk assessment, a mitigation and a date is a managed item. The same defect with a description and nothing else is an unmanaged one, and the difference is visible at a glance.
Does the office know?
Items the vessel is carrying alone, with no evidence that anybody ashore has seen them, point at the reporting process rather than at the defect. That is a different chapter and a worse finding.
The programme mechanics behind all of this — question types, the influencing factors and how observations are coded — are covered in our SIRE 2.0 inspection guide. This page is about the one document you hand over in the first five minutes.
What a defensible entry carries
An entry that survives scrutiny answers the questions an inspector would otherwise have to ask. The weak version of each field is the one worth checking before the list is printed.
Field
What a strong entry says
What a weak entry looks like
What and where
The specific item, identified well enough to be found and looked at
A category rather than an item — “deck lighting” with no location
When it was found
A date, and how it came to light — a routine round, a test, a crew report
No date, or a date that makes the item much older than the response
Risk assessment
What the consequence is and what it means for operations now
Blank, or a severity label with no reasoning behind it
Mitigation in place
The compensating measure being used until the repair, and who applies it
Nothing recorded, implying the ship is simply operating with the defect
Who has been told
Office, and class or flag where the item requires it, with the date
Vessel-only knowledge on an item that clearly needed reporting
Action and owner
What will fix it, who owns it, and whether parts are on order
“To be repaired” with no owner and no mechanism
Target date
A realistic date, with the reason if it has moved
A date already passed, or one that has moved repeatedly without comment
Status
Where it stands today, consistent with everything above
Open for a long period with no movement recorded against it
Two fields do most of the work. Mitigation is what turns an open defect into a controlled condition, and the date it moved is what separates a managed item from a forgotten one. An entry with both is difficult to criticise even when the defect itself is unwelcome.
Why disclosure is cheap and discovery is expensive
The arithmetic is what should drive the policy. A declared, managed item is intended to cost nothing. The same item found by the inspector and absent from the list is assessed in its own right and then again through everything that should have caught it.
It is scored where it sits
The hardware condition is observed and recorded in the chapter the equipment belongs to, exactly as it would have been either way.
Then as a failure to find
Your own area safety inspections should have identified it. An inspector seeing something your routine rounds did not raises a question about the rounds.
Then as a failure to report
If the crew knew and it never reached the list or the office, the finding moves to the reporting process, which sits in a different chapter again.
Then as a procedure and a person
Because every question is assessed across hardware, process and human factors, the same item can be recorded against the procedure that governs it and the competence of whoever applied it.
That is how one item becomes several entries, and it is also why a crew instinct to tidy the list before an inspection is exactly backwards. The list is the cheapest place a defect can live. Our guide to planned maintenance systems covers the routine side that feeds it.
Every defect with its assessment, mitigation and owner attached
Marine Inspection records defects where they are found, keeps the risk assessment and compensating measure with the item, and produces the open list on demand — so the document handed over is the system’s own output.
Nobody disputes that a failed pump belongs on the list. The arguments are about the margins, and getting them wrong in the cautious direction costs far less than getting them wrong the other way.
Cosmetic items
Include them where they are visible. A patch of deck corrosion an inspector will walk past is better met as a known item with a plan than as something nobody had noticed.
Items waiting on spares
Always. These are the strongest entries you have — identified, assessed, mitigated, ordered, with a delivery expected. They demonstrate the process working rather than failing.
Items under a class condition
Include them with the condition and its date. The inspector can see class records, so omitting an item that appears there turns a managed condition into a credibility problem.
Crew reports not yet verified
Include them, marked as reported and pending verification. A reported item that an officer has not yet looked at is still a live entry, and showing that the reporting channel is used is worth more than a tidy list.
Items closed last week
Remove them from the open list, but keep the closure evidence reachable. Several questions probe whether defects actually get closed rather than simply disappearing from a document.
Things the crew call normal wear
The test is not whether it is normal, it is whether an inspector would record it. If the answer is yes, it is a defect and belongs on the list with whatever plan applies.
Keeping the list honest between inspections
A list assembled for an inspection reads like one. Dates cluster, entries are phrased consistently, and everything was raised within a fortnight of the visit — all of which an experienced inspector notices without comment.
1
Raise defects where they are found
At the equipment, during the round, by the person who saw it. A defect that has to be remembered until somebody reaches a computer is a defect that will sometimes not be.
2
Review the open items on a fixed rhythm
Monthly, with the office, and record the review. Items that have not moved get a reason or a new date, which is what stops a list ageing quietly.
3
Close with evidence, not with a tick
A photograph, a test result or a completed job record against the item. Closure that leaves nothing behind cannot be shown, and showing it is the point.
4
Print the list, do not write it
If producing the list takes an afternoon, it is being assembled rather than maintained, and the inspection is not the moment to discover that.
The item that appears on two consecutive lists
An open defect is forgiven once. The same defect still open at the next inspection, with the same wording and a target date that has moved twice, is a different proposition — because the next inspection verifies what happened to the last one, and an unchanged entry answers that question badly.
It stops being about the equipment
The first time, an inspector reads a defect. The second time they read a management system that identified something, recorded it, and then did not act for a year. That shifts the finding into process and away from hardware, where it is harder to close.
The moved date is the evidence
A target date that slipped once with a recorded reason is a managed item. One that slipped three times with no reason recorded each time is the clearest demonstration available that the review is not happening.
Ageing is worth tracking on its own
Not the number of open items but their age. A fleet with forty young defects is in better shape than one with twelve that are all two years old, and only one of those two lists reads well.
Some items genuinely cannot close
Work that needs a dry dock, or a part with a long lead time, will legitimately carry across inspections. Say so in the entry, with the docking date or the order reference, and it reads as a plan rather than as neglect.
The practical discipline is to look at the list before the inspection and pick out anything that was on the previous one. Each of those needs either a closure before the visit or a sentence explaining why it is still there — and the sentence has to have been written at the time, not on the day. That is also the point at which fleet-level patterns become visible, and our guide to ISM compliance and SMS audits covers the management-system side of the same problem.
Over several cycles the list becomes a record of whether the company fixes things, which is more or less the question the whole vetting process exists to answer. You can book a demo to see ageing and repeated defects tracked across a fleet.
Before the inspector arrives
LSThe list itself
Produced from the defect system rather than written for the occasion
Every entry carries an assessment, a mitigation, an owner and a date
Dates are spread across the year, not clustered before the visit
Target dates that have moved carry the reason they moved
Nothing on it contradicts the class or flag record
SHThe ship against the list
A walk round found nothing that is not on it
Compensating measures described on the list are actually in place
Crew can describe the mitigation for items in their own area
Recently closed items can be shown as closed, with evidence
Vessel particulars and questionnaire entries agree with the ship
The last line matters more than its position suggests: particulars and questionnaire errors have been a persistent source of negative observations since the programme began, and they are entirely within the office’s control. You can book a demo to see the defect list and the vessel record held in one place.
How Marine Inspection manages the open defect list
Defects raised at the point of discovery
Logged during the round, with a photograph and a location, by whoever found it — which is what produces dates spread across the year rather than clustered before a visit.
Assessment and mitigation held with the item
The consequence, the compensating measure and who applies it kept against the defect, so the two fields that carry the most weight are never blank.
Reporting visible to the vessel
What was sent to the office, class or flag, and when, shown on the item itself rather than living in somebody’s sent folder.
The open list produced on demand
Printed in minutes from live records, which removes both the preparation effort and the tell-tale appearance of a list that was assembled.
Closure with evidence attached
Photographs, tests and job records against the item, so a closed defect can be demonstrated rather than asserted.
Fleet view for the QHSE office
Ageing items, repeated defects and overdue targets across vessels, which is where a procedure change does more than another vessel visit.
SIRE 2.0 open defects: frequently asked questions
Will open defects on the list produce negative observations?
They are not intended to. OCIMF’s position, as relayed to operators, is that where a proper defect management process has been followed the open items should not generate negative observations in themselves. What produces findings is a defect that is not on the list, or one on it with no assessment, mitigation or plan behind it.
How can one defect produce several observations?
Because the same item is assessed from more than one direction. The hardware condition is recorded in its own chapter, the routine inspection that missed it is a separate question, the reporting that never raised it is another, and every question carries hardware, process and human factor dimensions. Operators have reported as many as six entries arising from a single undisclosed item.
What has to be in each entry?
What the defect is and where, when and how it was found, the risk assessment, the compensating measure in place, who has been informed including class or flag where required, the action with an owner, a target date, and the current status. Mitigation and the date carry the most weight.
Should minor or cosmetic items go on the list?
If an inspector would record it, it belongs on the list. Visible corrosion, a defective light, a seized fitting — all are better met as known items with a plan than discovered as things nobody had noticed. Erring toward inclusion costs very little; omission can cost several entries.
Does a short list look good?
Not on a vessel with any age on her. A very short list invites the question of whether defects are being found at all, and that question leads into the routine inspection and reporting processes rather than into the equipment.
How do you avoid the list looking assembled?
By producing it from a system that is used continuously. Defects raised where they are found, open items reviewed on a fixed rhythm with the reason recorded when a date moves, and closures evidenced. A list printed in minutes from live records looks different from one written over an afternoon, and the difference is visible in the dates.
The list is the cheapest place a defect can live
Marine Inspection keeps defects, their assessments, mitigations and closures on one record, so the open list is printed rather than prepared — and the item an inspector finds is already an item you declared.
