RAIL UT — PEER REVIEW ANALYST REPORT

Ultrasonic rail-flaw review · AREMA defect codes · channel = probe angle (0° normal · 45° / 70° angle-beam)
—
1Truck collects UT data→ 2Analyst makes picks→ 3Peer Reviewer keeps / removes / adds→ 4Field Verifier confirms defects
★ SANITIZED SAMPLE — randomized data, no real analysts or railroads
Select analyst
Two independent QA stages: the peer reviewer keeps/removes/adds the analyst's picks, then a field verifier confirms which sent picks are actual defects. Operators over-call so a real defect is never missed, so most sent picks do not verify as defects — a low defect rate is expected. Catch Rate (verified defects the analyst had in their own picks, vs. ones the reviewer had to add) is the key quality metric.
Peer Review — reviewer dispositions
what the reviewer did to the analyst's picks
Field Verification — picks sent to the field
verifier outcome on Kept + Added picks

Indication Detail

Run Mile Post Defect Size Channel PR Status Verification Remedial Action Break Notes Sign-off
Sanitized sample for portfolio use — randomized data, no real analysts or railroads. Modeled on a production rail ultrasonic peer-review tool. Defect codes per AREMA; remedial actions per FRA 49 CFR 213.113.