Auditing Water Mitigation Dry Log Completeness

Research question and scope

This protocol asks whether a water mitigation dry log contains enough dated, located, and attributable readings to support the service days and equipment billed. The unit is a mitigation file with a log, an invoice, and a photo set.

It does not evaluate whether the structure was dried correctly, whether the equipment was sufficient, or whether the invoice price was fair. Those are technical and commercial judgments for a qualified reviewer.

Population and file selection

Define the population from a fixed vendor invoice export for a stated period. Record the vendor, service address range, invoice count, and the rule for files with multiple visits. Include files with no log and files with a log but no invoice so the missing-evidence rate is visible.

Exclude files only for a written reason, such as a cancelled job or a duplicate invoice. Preserve the excluded count. A population drawn only from completed files will overstate documentation quality.

Measures and definitions

Code the number of service days invoiced, the number of dates with at least one reading, the number of rooms or materials with readings, the equipment types and counts by day, the presence of technician initials, and the presence of a customer acknowledgment. Add a flag for photos whose date or location cannot be established.

Define a valid reading before the review. A number without a material, a location, or a date may be a data point but not a usable reading. State whether relative humidity and moisture content are treated separately; they answer different questions and should not be merged into one completeness score.

Sampling and reviewer agreement

Stratify by vendor, job size, service-day count, and log format. Include paper logs, portal exports, and logs embedded in an invoice packet. Record the sample seed and any replacement with its reason.

Two reviewers should code a calibration set and compare each measure. Disagreement often appears on equipment counts when a machine moves between rooms. The codebook should say whether the count is by placement, by unique asset, or by billed quantity.

Analysis and limitations

Report the share of invoiced days with a matching log date, the share of readings with a room and material, and the count of equipment-day differences. Show missingness by vendor and format rather than only a pooled rate.

A missing log does not prove that drying did not occur, and a complete log does not prove that the work was adequate. The audit describes documentation condition. Vendor volume, portal outages, and different log templates can all affect the result.

Privacy and replication

Mitigation files can include interior photos, occupancy details, and access notes. Use a restricted sample, redact addresses in the report, and avoid reproducing images that identify a resident.

Retain the invoice query, file list, codebook, sample seed, reviewer notes, and a table of measured values. The method should allow a second reviewer to recompute the day and equipment variances from the same files.

Method note

We used public mold cleanup guidance and restoration-industry references to define documentation fields, then added internal-control questions for reconciliation. No drying files or invoices were reviewed.