Condition assessments
Record asset condition over time and let AssetLab project degradation - the data that powers risk, FCI, and defensible capital plans.
A condition assessment is a dated, sourced statement of how an asset is doing. One rating is a snapshot; a series is a trend line - and trend lines are what turn "we think the boiler is getting worse" into a capital plan a council or board will fund.
The condition scale
Condition is scored 0-100, and every screen that shows a grade uses the same bands:
| Grade | Score |
|---|---|
| Excellent | 85-100 |
| Good | 70-84 |
| Fair | 55-69 |
| Poor | 40-54 |
| Critical | 0-39 |
| Unscored | no score recorded |
The same bands apply to infrastructure features, including the map's condition colouring. A feature or asset with no score recorded is Unscored - it is not counted as Critical, and it is not silently left out of the totals.
Recording an assessment
From the asset page's Condition Assessments section, add an assessment with:
- Assessment date - when it was observed, not when it was typed in
- Condition score - the rating on your scale
- Replacement cost - the asset's current replacement value as observed
- Update purchase cost - an opt-in checkbox; see below
- Assessor - picked from your organization's users
- Method - chosen from a fixed list (how the condition was established)
- Notes - the evidence behind the number
To attach photos, use the asset's documents instead - the assessment record itself doesn't carry attachments.
Assessments build a dated history, and they stay editable: an entry can be corrected or deleted after the fact. Whenever an assessment is added, edited, or deleted, the asset's condition score re-syncs to its latest assessment automatically.
What an assessment writes
An assessment can do more than record a number:
- Its replacement cost documents the observed current replacement value.
- With the update purchase cost opt-in checked, that value overwrites the asset's purchase cost - the previous figure is stashed on the assessment as its prior purchase cost, so nothing is silently lost.
- Both the condition sync and the purchase-cost writeback fire risk history capture, so the risk trend reflects the change.
Where assessments come from
- Manual entry on the asset page
- Inspection forms completed during PM work orders
- Consultant studies brought in via import
- The API and MCP tools (
create_asset_condition_assessment)
Degradation projection
With an assessment history (or even one rating plus an installation date), AssetLab projects the asset's condition forward using its expected useful life - a degradation curve from current condition toward end of life. The projection shows:
- Estimated condition today, even between assessments
- Projected year the asset crosses your intervention threshold
- How new assessments bend the curve - a rebuild that improves condition pushes the projected replacement out; accelerated wear pulls it in
Projections are estimates, and they're labeled as such. Their job is triage: with ten thousand assets, nobody re-inspects everything annually - the curve tells you where to look.
What condition data feeds
| Consumer | How it uses condition |
|---|---|
| Risk scores | Condition drives likelihood-of-failure |
| FCI | Deficiency costs over replacement value, rolled up by building and system |
| Replacement planner | Prioritizes candidates by condition and risk, not just age |
| Dashboards | Portfolio condition distribution and trend |
| Infrastructure inspections | The linear-asset equivalent, same idea per feature |
Program advice
- Start with critical systems - life safety, ice plants, boilers, roofs. Breadth can wait; criticality can't.
- Use one scale consistently. Whatever your scale, write down what each rating means and put it in front of assessors.
- Date honestly. Backdate imported consultant data to the study date, or your trend lines lie.