Enough to show a walk actually happened: time, the specific area covered, the person who performed it, the condition found and any action taken. Logs recording only a shift-end signature, or completed in one sitting for a whole day, indicate a recording routine rather than an inspection routine.

By reference to the property type, its traffic, its known conditions and the operator's own written commitments, alongside general facility practice for comparable buildings. The comparison rests on three decades running these programmes in airport, municipal, healthcare and retail settings.

It demonstrates knowledge. A condition identified, priced and postponed is one the operator knew about, and the record shows for how long. The analysis addresses whether the deferral left an unsafe condition in service and whether any interim control was put in place.

That is a legal question for counsel. What the analysis supplies is the operational picture: what the contract scope covered, what frequency it specified, what oversight the owner retained, whether performance was monitored, and where the boundary between scopes left an area unaddressed.

Yes, where the arithmetic matters. If a policy requires an area walked every thirty minutes and the roster provides one person covering a footprint that cannot be walked in thirty minutes, the schedule was not achievable as written. That is an operational finding from having built such rosters.

The absence is documented as a finding rather than assumed to favour either side. Surrounding periods are examined to establish what the normal record looked like, and the gap is described precisely, since a missing window is often as informative as the entries either side of it.