Work order management system for managing non-conformance anomalies in a structure and associated method and system

Abstract

A structured inspection management system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium are disclosed for managing anomalies. The system organizes a plurality of inspection orders, each associated with an anomaly and defining inspection criteria for performing an inspection. The system presents inspection criteria for a selected inspection order and enforces restriction of allowable input to a predefined set of structured inspection responses associated with performance of the inspection. Based on at least one structured inspection response, the system automatically determines and stores an inspection status for the selected inspection order. When the inspection status indicates that the anomaly remains unresolved, the inspection order is maintained in an incomplete state for subsequent inspection or corrective action.

Description

- 1 - WORK ORDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR MANAGING NON-CONFORMANCE ANOMALIES IN A STRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED METHOD AND SYSTEM CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

[0001] This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63 / 765,186, filed February 28, 2025, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. FIELD

[0002] This disclosure relates generally to inspection management systems, and more particularly to systems and methods for managing inspection activities associated with anomalies using structured inspection responses. BACKGROUND

[0003] Managing inspection activities associated with anomalies in large or complex structures, such as aircraft, rockets, microchips, and other assemblies, can present significant challenges due to the volume, complexity, and distribution of anomalies. Conventional inspection management approaches often rely on unstructured or freeform inspection inputs, fragmented data handling, and rigid integration with existing quality management systems, which can result in inefficiencies, inconsistent inspection outcomes, and difficulty maintaining traceability across inspection activities.

[0004] In addition, many existing inspection workflows provide limited coordination between inspection criteria, inspection responses, and inspection status, and are not well suited for use across hybrid digital and manual inspection environments. Inspection activities may be performed using a combination of paper-based records and CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 2 - electronic systems that do not operate cohesively, increasing the risk of errors, complicating record synchronization, and reducing confidence in inspection results. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 3 - SUMMARY

[0005] The subject matter of the present application has been developed in response to the present state of the art, and particularly in response to the shortcomings associated with conventional inspection management approaches that have not yet been fully solved by currently available techniques. Accordingly, the subject matter of the present application has been developed to provide systems and methods for structured inspection management that overcome at least some of the above-mentioned shortcomings of prior art techniques.

[0006] The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples, which may or may not be claimed, of the subject matter, disclosed herein.

[0007] Disclosed herein is a structured inspection management system. The system includes an inspection organization module that organizes a plurality of inspection orders. Each inspection order is associated with an anomaly and defines inspection criteria for performing an inspection associated with the anomaly. The system also includes a display module that presents the inspection criteria for a selected inspection order. The system further includes a response enforcement module that restricts user input for the selected inspection order to a predefined set of structured inspection responses associated with performance of the inspection. Additionally, the system includes a status tracking module that automatically determines and stores an inspection status for the selected inspection order based on at least one structured inspection response. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 1 of the present disclosure.

[0008] The structured inspection management system further includes a traceability module configured to record traceability data for each structured inspection response selected via the response enforcement module. The traceability data enables identification of at least one of a source or timing of the structured inspection response. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 4 - The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 2 of the present disclosure, wherein example 2 also includes the subject matter according to example 1, above.

[0009] In a manual workflow mode, the inspection criteria and the predefined set of structured inspection responses are provided on a physical inspection record, at least one structured inspection response recorded on the physical inspection record is subsequently entered into the response enforcement module via an electronic interface, and the inspection status is determined based on the structured inspection response received via the electronic interface. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 3 of the present disclosure, wherein example 3 also includes the subject matter according to any of examples 1 or 2, above.

[0010] In a digital workflow mode, the inspection criteria and the predefined set of structured inspection responses are presented via an electronic interface, and the inspection status is determined based on the structured inspection response received via the electronic interface. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 4 of the present disclosure, wherein example 4 also includes the subject matter according to any of examples 1-3, above.

[0011] Each inspection order includes a plurality of inspection phases, and the response enforcement module restricts the predefined set of structured inspection responses based on a current inspection phase. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 5 of the present disclosure, wherein example 5 also includes the subject matter according to any of examples 1-4, above.

[0012] In one example, an initial inspection phase includes a predefined set of structured inspection responses indicative of whether a condition associated with the anomaly exists. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 6 CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 5 - of the present disclosure, wherein example 6 also includes the subject matter according to example 5, above.

[0013] In another example, a resolution inspection phase following corrective action includes a predefined set of structured inspection responses indicative of acceptance or rejection of a condition of the anomaly. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 7 of the present disclosure, wherein example 7 also includes the subject matter according to example 5, above.

[0014] In some examples, the status tracking module determines the inspection status based on both the selected structured inspection response and the current inspection phase of the selected inspection order. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 8 of the present disclosure, wherein example 8 also includes the subject matter according to example 5, above.

[0015] The status tracking module maintains the selected inspection order in an incomplete state when the structured inspection response indicates that the anomaly remains unresolved. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 9 of the present disclosure, wherein example 9 also includes the subject matter according to any of examples 1-8, above.

[0016] Each inspection order is associated with the anomaly via anomaly identification data comprising a unique anomaly identifier. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 10 of the present disclosure, wherein example 10 also includes the subject matter according to any of examples 1-9, above.

[0017] Each inspection order is associated with anomaly-related information including anomaly identification information, anomaly description information, and anomaly location information. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 11 of the present disclosure, wherein example 11 also includes the subject matter according to any of examples 1-10, above. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 6 -

[0018] The inspection organization module populates the plurality of inspection orders from one or more data sources, including locally stored data, manually uploaded data, or externally retrieved data. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 12 of the present disclosure, wherein example 12 also includes the subject matter according to any of examples 1-11, above.

[0019] The display module presents inspection visual data associated with the anomaly, where the inspection visual data includes one or more of images, diagrams, or maps. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 13 of the present disclosure, wherein example 13 also includes the subject matter according to any of examples 1-12, above.

[0020] Further disclosed herein is a method for structured anomaly inspection management. The method includes accessing a selected inspection order associated with an anomaly and presenting inspection criteria for the selected inspection order. The method also includes enforcing restriction of allowable input to a predefined set of structured inspection responses associated with performance of the inspection and receiving at least one structured inspection response selected from the predefined set. The method further includes automatically determining and storing an inspection status for the selected inspection order based on the structured inspection response. The inspection order is maintained in an incomplete state when the inspection status indicates that the anomaly remains unresolved. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 14 of the present disclosure.

[0021] The method further includes recording traceability data associated with receiving the structured inspection response. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 15 of the present disclosure, wherein example 15 also includes the subject matter according to example 14, above. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 7 -

[0022] The traceability data includes at least one of a source or timing of the structured inspection response. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 16 of the present disclosure, wherein example 16 also includes the subject matter according to example 15, above.

[0023] The selected inspection order includes a plurality of inspection phases, and enforcing restriction of allowable input includes enforcing selection from a predefined set of structured inspection responses corresponding to a current inspection phase. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 17 of the present disclosure, wherein example 17 also includes the subject matter according to any of examples 14-16, above.

[0024] The method further includes tracking a number of inspection attempts associated with the selected inspection order, each inspection attempt corresponding to receipt of at least one structured inspection response. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 18 of the present disclosure, wherein example 18 also includes the subject matter according to any of examples 14-17, above.

[0025] Enforcing restriction of allowable input includes preventing entry of freeform inspection responses. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 19 of the present disclosure, wherein example 19 also includes the subject matter according to any of examples 14-18, above.

[0026] Further disclosed herein is a non-transitory computer-readable medium stores instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the processors to access a selected inspection order associated with an anomaly, present inspection criteria for the selected inspection order, enforce restriction of allowable input to a predefined set of structured inspection responses associated with performance of an inspection, receive at least one structured inspection response selected from the predefined set, and automatically determine and store an inspection status for the selected inspection order. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 8 - The inspection order is maintained in an incomplete state when the anomaly remains unresolved. The preceding subject matter of this paragraph characterizes example 20 of the present disclosure.

[0027] The described features, structures, advantages, and / or characteristics of the subject matter of the present disclosure may be combined in any suitable manner in one or more examples and / or implementations. In the following description, numerous specific details are provided to impart a thorough understanding of examples of the subject matter of the present disclosure. One skilled in the relevant art will recognize that the subject matter of the present disclosure may be practiced without one or more of the specific features, details, components, materials, and / or methods of a particular example or implementation. In other instances, additional features and advantages may be recognized in certain examples and / or implementations that may not be present in all examples or implementations. Further, in some instances, well-known structures, materials, or operations are not shown or described in detail to avoid obscuring aspects of the subject matter of the present disclosure. The features and advantages of the subject matter of the present disclosure will become more fully apparent from the following description and appended claims, or may be learned by the practice of the subject matter as set forth hereinafter. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 9 - BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0028] In order that the advantages of the subject matter may be more readily understood, a more particular description of the subject matter briefly described above will be rendered by reference to specific examples that are illustrated in the appended drawings. Understanding that these drawings, which are not necessarily drawn to scale, depict only certain examples of the subject matter and are not therefore to be considered to be limiting of its scope, the subject matter will be described and explained with additional specificity and detail through the use of the drawings, in which:

[0029] Figure 1 is a schematic block diagram of one example of a structured inspection management system, according to one or more examples of the present disclosure;

[0030] Figure 2 is a schematic representation of one example of an inspection order interface showing a plurality of inspection orders and associated inspection order information, according to one or more examples of the present disclosure;

[0031] Figure 3A is a schematic representation of one example of an inspection interface for a selected inspection order, showing inspection order–related information, inspection criteria, and a response field associated with a predefined set of structured inspection responses, according to one or more examples of the present disclosure;

[0032] Figure 3B is a schematic representation of one example presentation of a predefined set of structured inspection responses associated with the response field of Figure 3A, according to one or more examples of the present disclosure;

[0033] Figure 3C is a schematic representation of one example presentation of a selected structured inspection response for the response field of Figure 3A, and the corresponding automatic update of inspection status information, according to one or more examples of the present disclosure; CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 10 -

[0034] Figure 4 is a schematic representation of one example of a physical inspection record used in a manual workflow mode, illustrating inspection criteria and structured inspection response options recorded on the physical inspection record, according to one or more examples of the present disclosure; and

[0035] Figure 5 is a flow diagram of a method for structured inspection management, according to one or more examples of the present disclosure. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 11 - DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0036] Reference throughout this specification to “one example,” “an example,” or similar language means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the example is included in at least one example of the present disclosure. Appearances of the phrases “in one example,” “in an example,” and similar language throughout this specification may, but do not necessarily, all refer to the same example. Similarly, the use of the term “implementation” means an implementation having a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with one or more examples of the present disclosure, however, absent an express correlation to indicate otherwise, an implementation may be associated with one or more examples.

[0037] Disclosed herein is a structured inspection management system for managing anomalies associated with a structure. As used herein, anomalies refer to conditions that deviate from predefined design, manufacturing, operational, or maintenance criteria, and may include, but not limited to, defects or other non-conforming conditions affecting the performance, integrity, reliability, or appearance of the structure. Such anomalies can arise from manufacturing inconsistencies, material degradation, assembly errors, environmental damage, operational stresses, fatigue, or other factors that cause a component or system to fall outside acceptable tolerances. Anomalies may vary in size and severity, ranging from minor surface imperfections to large-scale structural conditions that may impact operational suitability, safety margins, or long-term reliability if not appropriately addressed.

[0038] In general terms, the disclosed structured inspection management system organizes inspection orders associated with anomalies, presents inspection criteria for a selected inspection order, restricts inspection input to a predefined set of structured inspection responses, and automatically determines and tracks inspection status based on the structured inspection responses. The system applies this structured inspection logic CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 12 - consistently regardless of whether inspection activities are performed using electronic interfaces, physical records, or a combination thereof. The structured inspection management system supports operation across digital, manual, and hybrid inspection workflows, including use in both connected and offline environments. By enforcing structured inspection responses and system-driven inspection status determination across these workflows, the system improves consistency, traceability, and repeatability of inspection activities while reducing ambiguity in inspection outcomes. That is, unlike conventional inspection management systems that rely on freeform inspection input and manual interpretation of inspection outcomes, the disclosed structured inspection management system enforces restriction of allowable inspection input to predefined structured inspection responses and automatically determines inspection status based on those responses. In other words, the disclosed system enforces inspection outcome selection and derives inspection status without subjective interpretation.

[0039] The disclosed system may be beneficial for large and / or complex structures and assemblies, such as aircraft, ships, industrial equipment, or large infrastructure components, where anomaly information is often geographically distributed and / or operationally complex. In such environments, the structured inspection management approach provided by the disclosed system supports improves coordination across distributed personnel and systems, promotes consistent inspection execution, and facilitates more efficient inspection activities across multiple operational contexts. In one non-limiting example, the structured inspection management system may be used in an aircraft manufacturing or maintenance environment to manage inspection activities associated with anomalies identified across different aircraft sections, production stages, or inspection phases.

[0040] Referring to Figure 1, according to one example, a structured inspection management system 100 for managing anomalies associated with a structure is shown. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 13 - The structured inspection management system 100 provides a unified and systematic framework for managing inspection activities associated with anomalies throughout one or more inspection lifecycles. In general, the system 100 is configured to organize inspection orders associated with anomalies, present inspection criteria associated with a selected inspection order, enforce the use of structured inspection responses during inspection activities, and automatically determine and track inspection status based on those responses.

[0041] The structured inspection management system 100 is configured to support inspection activities performed across multiple environments, including digital, manual, and hybrid workflows, and may operate in both connected and offline conditions. By applying consistent response logic independent of how inspection interactions are conducted, the system 100 can reduce ambiguity in inspection execution, improves traceability of inspection outcomes, and promotes repeatable and auditable inspection processes. In this manner, the structured inspection management system 100 provides a foundational inspection management capability that supports coordinated inspection activities across distributed personnel, locations, and inspection phases without relying on freeform input or ad hoc status determination.

[0042] The structured inspection management system 100 is applicable to a wide range of structures, including but not limited to aircraft, ships, industrial machinery, microchips, and large-scale infrastructure components. As used herein, a structure may include any physical assembly, system, or component subject to inspection for anomalies, and may be composed of multiple interconnected components, materials, or subsystems. Anomalies associated with such structures may vary in size and severity, ranging from minor surface imperfections to larger conditions that impact performance, safety, reliability, or operational suitability. In these environments, inspection activities associated with anomalies may be performed at different stages of manufacturing, CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 14 - assembly, inspection, maintenance, or repair, and may involve multiple inspectors, processes, and operational contexts. As a result, inspection activities are frequently conducted across disparate systems, locations, and workflows, creating challenges in ensuring consistent inspection execution, response handling, and inspection status determination.

[0043] In some examples, the structured inspection management system may be deployed in environments where inspection activities are performed by multiple parties across different locations or organizational boundaries. For example, in aerospace manufacturing or assembly environments, inspections may be performed at supplier facilities, during intermediate production stages, or prior to final delivery of a structure. The structured inspection management system enables inspection orders, structured inspection responses, and inspection status to be consistently recorded and tracked across such environments in an auditable manner. For example, the system may be used to support inspection activities performed upstream in a supply chain, enabling anomalies to be verified and resolved prior to integration into downstream assemblies. By enforcing structured inspection responses and system-driven inspection status determination, the system helps reduce unresolved anomalies and supports coordination between different organizations or inspection teams.

[0044] In some examples, the structured inspection management system 100 includes a plurality of modules that collectively support structured inspection management. For example, and without limitation, the system 100 may include an inspection organization module 102, a display module 104, a response enforcement module 106, a status tracking module 108, and, in some embodiments, a traceability module 110. The arrangement, inclusion, and functionality of the modules shown in Figure 1 are illustrative, and in other embodiments the system 100 may include additional modules, fewer modules, or different combinations of modules. In some examples, CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 15 - functionality associated with one or more of the modules may be combined, distributed across multiple systems, or performed at least in part through manual or hybrid digital and manual workflows.

[0045] The inspection organization module 102 is configured to organize, manage, and retrieve a plurality of inspection orders, where each inspection order is associated with an anomaly in a structure. Additionally, each inspection order defines inspection criteria for performing one or more inspection activities associated with the anomaly. The inspection organization module 102 provides a structured framework for managing inspection orders throughout one or more inspection lifecycles, including creation, selection, retrieval, and re-queuing of inspection orders based on inspection outcomes.

[0046] In some examples, the inspection organization module 102 populates and manages inspection orders using data obtained from one or more data sources. Data sources may include at least one of locally stored data, manually uploaded data, or externally retrieved data. This multi-source capability enables the structured inspection management system 100 to support automated, manual, and hybrid inspection workflows, and to operate in environments where inspection information may originate from different systems, tools, or record formats. Inspection orders may be stored or represented in various forms, including electronic data structures, structured files, or physical records, depending on the implementation of the structured inspection management system 100.

[0047] The display module 104 is configured to present inspection-related information for inspection orders in a structured manner. In some examples, the display module 104 presents information associated with a selected inspection order, including inspection criteria defined for the inspection order, inspection status information, and anomaly-related information associated with the inspection order. In other examples, the CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 16 - display module 104 presents information for a plurality of inspection orders to enable a user to view, compare, or manage inspection activities across multiple inspection orders. The display module 104 enables users to review inspection orders, understand inspection requirements, and monitor inspection status as inspection activities progress, either at an individual level or across multiple inspection orders.

[0048] In some examples, the display module 104 provides an electronic interface through which inspection-related information is presented to a user, such as a graphical user interface displaying inspection orders and associated inspection data. In other implementations, the display module 104 supports presentation of inspection information in non-electronic formats, including printed or physical inspection records, to support manual or offline inspection workflows. The display module 104 may present inspection-related information in various visual arrangements, including tabular views, lists, or other layouts, depending on the implementation of the structured inspection management system 100 and the operational context.

[0049] The display module 104 may be further configured to present inspection visual data associated with an anomaly. The inspection visual data may include one or more visual representations that provide spatial or contextual information regarding the anomaly, including, without limitation, images, diagrams, or maps. Such inspection visual data may be presented in association with an inspection order to assist users in understanding the location, context, or characteristics of the anomaly during inspection activities.

[0050] The response enforcement module 106 is configured to control and restrict user input to allowable inspection input for inspection orders. In particular, the response enforcement module 106 restricts user input for a selected inspection order to a predefined set of structured inspection responses associated with performance of the inspection. The predefined structured inspection responses represent permitted CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 17 - inspection outcomes and are configured to be selected by a user rather than entered as freeform or unstructured text. By limiting allowable input to predefined structured inspection responses, the response enforcement module 106 reduces ambiguity in inspection outcomes and promotes consistent inspection execution across different workflows and environments. This structured response enforcement enables inspection activities to be performed consistently across different inspectors, locations, and operational contexts, including digital, manual, and hybrid inspection workflows, while providing a reliable basis for subsequent inspection status determination and inspection tracking. In some examples, the predefined set of structured inspection responses may be configurable prior to inspection execution but is fixed during performance of a given inspection order.

[0051] In some examples, each inspection order includes a plurality of inspection phases, and the response enforcement module 106 is configured to restrict the predefined set of structured inspection responses based on a current inspection phase of the inspection order. As an inspection order progresses through different inspection phases, the response enforcement module 106 enforces selection from a corresponding predefined set of structured inspection responses associated with the current inspection phase, thereby ensuring that only context-appropriate inspection input is permitted at each phase. In other example, an inspection order only includes a single inspection phase.

[0052] In some examples, one of the inspection phases comprises an initial inspection phase in which the predefined set of structured inspection responses includes responses indicative of whether a condition associated with the anomaly exists. In some examples, another inspection phase comprises a resolution inspection phase following corrective action, in which the predefined set of structured inspection responses includes responses indicative of acceptance or rejection of a condition of the anomaly. By phase- CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 18 - controlling allowable inspection responses, the response enforcement module 106 ensures consistent handling of inspection input as inspection orders progress through different stages of inspection activity. In other examples, inspection orders may include additional or alternative inspection phases beyond the initial inspection phase and the resolution inspection phase. Such inspection phases may include, without limitation, verification inspection phases, re-inspection phases, supplemental inspection phases, deferred inspection phases, conditional acceptance phases, or final closure phases. The response enforcement module 106 may restrict allowable inspection responses based on the current inspection phase in each case, in accordance with predefined structured inspection responses associated with the respective phase.

[0053] The status tracking module 108 is configured to determine, update, and store an inspection status for inspection orders as inspection activities progress. The status tracking module 108 ensures that each inspection order is consistently classified according to predefined inspection status categories based on structured inspection input received via the response enforcement module 106. In some examples, the status tracking module 108 automatically determines the inspection status for a selected inspection order based on at least one structured inspection response selected from the predefined set of structured inspection responses. For example, when a structured inspection response indicates that an anomaly condition does not exist or has been satisfactorily addressed, the inspection status may be updated to a completed status. Conversely, when a structured inspection response indicates that an anomaly condition exists or remains unresolved, the inspection status may be maintained in an active or incomplete status to support further inspection or corrective action. An inspection status includes one of a predefined set of inspection status states maintained by the structured inspection management system, each inspection status state representing a system-recognized outcome of the inspection. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 19 -

[0054] In some examples, the status tracking module 108 supports inspection orders having a plurality of inspection phases and determines inspection status in a manner that reflects progression through the inspection phases. In other words, the status tracking module 108 determined the inspection status for a selected inspection order based on both the at least one structured inspection response and the current inspection phase of the inspection order. For example, an inspection order may remain in an incomplete status across multiple inspection phases until a structured inspection response corresponding to a later inspection phase indicates an acceptable inspection outcome.

[0055] In some examples, the status tracking module 108 performs one or more system actions in response to changes in inspection status. For example, inspection orders maintained in an incomplete status may be re-queued for subsequent inspection activities, while inspection orders updated to a completed status may be restricted from further modification unless reactivated by an authorized user. In some examples, the status tracking module 108 may also generate notifications or alerts when inspection status conditions are met, such as inspection orders remaining incomplete for a threshold period of time.

[0056] The structured inspection management system 100 may further include a traceability module 110 configured to record traceability data associated with inspection activities performed for inspection orders. In some examples, the traceability module 110 records traceability data enabling identification of at least one of a source or timing associated with structured inspection responses and inspection status updates for an inspection order.

[0057] In some examples, traceability data recorded by the traceability module 110 may include, without limitation, one or more of a user identifier, a response timestamp, a system identifier, or other metadata associated with inspection-related actions. Such actions may include creation or selection of an inspection order, entry of CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 20 - structured inspection responses via the response enforcement module 106, inspection status determination by the status tracking module 108, or re-queuing or completion of an inspection order. By recording traceability data in association with structured inspection responses and inspection status changes, the traceability module 110 may provide an auditable inspection history for inspection orders. This traceability supports accountability, review, and compliance requirements across different inspection workflows and operational environments, including digital, manual, and hybrid inspection workflows.

[0058] In some examples, traceability data recorded by the traceability module 110 may include one or more identifiers that correspond to records maintained in external systems, such as quality management systems or anomaly tracking systems used by other organizations. For example, an inspection order identifier or anomaly identifier maintained by the structured inspection management system 100 may be associated with a corresponding record or reference identifier in an external system. Such identifier-based associations enable cross-system traceability of inspection activity without requiring direct system integration or modification of external records. This enables the structured inspection management system 100 to be used across multiple organizations or systems while maintaining consistent, structured inspection response capture and inspection status determination.

[0059] The structured inspection management system 100 may be configured to operate in a manual workflow mode. In the manual workflow mode, inspection criteria and the predefined set of structured inspection responses associated with an inspection order are provided on a physical inspection record, such as a printed document or other non-electronic medium. Inspection activities associated with the anomaly may be performed on the structure in accordance with the inspection criteria using the physical inspection record, and at least one structured inspection response reflecting the inspection CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 21 - activities may subsequently be entered into the response enforcement module 106 via an electronic interface. That is, entry of the structured inspection response occur after performance of the inspection, as part of a separate data-entry or synchronization step, and not contemporaneously with inspection performance. In the manual workflow mode, the status tracking module 108 determines the inspection status for the inspection order based on the at least one structured inspection response received via the electronic interface. In this manner, the structured inspection management system 100 maintains consistent enforcement of structured inspection responses and system-driven inspection status determination, even when inspection activities are initially performed using physical records. Although inspection activities may be performed using physical inspection records in the manual workflow mode, structured inspection responses are ultimately entered into the structured inspection management system 100 to enable response enforcement and system-driven inspection status determination. In other words, inspection orders initially handled using physical inspection records are subsequently digitized or synchronized with the structured inspection management system 100 to maintain a unified inspection record.

[0060] The structured inspection management system 100 may also be configured to operate in a digital workflow mode. In the digital workflow mode, inspection criteria and the predefined set of structured inspection responses associated with an inspection order are presented via an electronic interface, such as a graphical user interface generated by the display module 104. Inspection activities associated with the anomaly may be performed on the structure in accordance with the inspection criteria, and at least one structured inspection response reflecting the inspection activities may be entered via the electronic interface and received by the response enforcement module 106. In the digital workflow mode, the status tracking module 108 determines the inspection status for the inspection order based on the at least one structured inspection response received CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 22 - via the electronic interface. The digital workflow mode enables real-time or near-real-time inspection status determination and tracking.

[0061] In some examples, the structured inspection management system 100 supports seamless transition between manual and electronic workflows. Inspection orders may be partially completed using physical inspection records and subsequently uploaded, entered, or synchronized with the structured inspection management system 100 without loss of inspection data or traceability. This hybrid capability allows inspection activities to continue uninterrupted during transitions between paper-based and electronic processes while maintaining consistent enforcement of structured inspection responses and system-driven inspection status determination.

[0062] In some examples, each inspection order managed by the structured inspection management system 100 is associated with a corresponding anomaly via anomaly identification data. The anomaly identification data may include a unique anomaly identifier that enables the inspection order to be consistently linked to the associated anomaly across different system components, workflows, and inspection activities. Additionally, each inspection order may be further associated with anomaly-related information describing the associated anomaly. Such anomaly-related information may include, without limitation, anomaly identification information, anomaly description information, and anomaly location information. By associating inspection orders with anomaly-related information, the structured inspection management system 100 enables inspection activities to be performed with appropriate context while maintaining consistent linkage between inspection orders and the anomalies to which they correspond.

[0063] Referring to Figure 2, one non-limiting example of an inspection interface generated by the structured inspection management system 100 is shown. In this example, the inspection interface presents information associated with a plurality of CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 23 - inspection orders each associated with an anomaly, managed by the system, and including anomaly description information, anomaly location information, and structured inspection responses associated with respective inspection orders. The inspection interface of Figure 2 is illustrative and represents one example of how inspection-related information may be visually organized for review and interaction. In other examples, inspection-related information may be presented using different visual layouts, groupings, or interfaces, and the specific information displayed may vary depending on factors such as user role, inspection phase, or operational context. Accordingly, Figure 2 is not intended to limit the structure, functionality, or presentation of the structured inspection management system 100.

[0064] In some examples, the inspection interface of Figure 2 is provided by the display module 104 and enables a user to view inspection orders individually or collectively. For example, the inspection interface may present inspection order identifiers, inspection status indicators, and selectable structured inspection responses corresponding to inspection criteria defined for the inspection orders. The inspection interface may further present anomaly-related information and, in some examples, inspection visual data associated with anomalies, such as images, diagrams, or maps, to provide contextual information for inspection activities.

[0065] Specifically, as shown in Figure 2, the inspection interface illustrates a plurality of inspection orders 112. Each inspection order 112 includes inspection order-specific data to facilitate anomaly tracking, inspection order management, and traceability. Such data may include, without limitation, an inspection order identifier 114 configured to uniquely identify the inspection order, inspection status information 116 indicating a current status of the inspection order (for example, active, completed, incomplete, queued), and, in some examples, inspection order revision information 118 (see, e.g., Figure 3) to track updates or modifications to the inspection order over time. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 24 -

[0066] Each inspection order 112 is associated with a corresponding anomaly via anomaly identification data, which may include a unique anomaly identifier (not shown). In some examples, an inspection order identifier and an anomaly identifier associated with the inspection order may be the same or different, depending on how anomalies and inspection orders are tracked within a particular implementation. Each inspection order 112 may further include anomaly-related information associated with the anomaly, such as anomaly description information 124 and anomaly location information 126. The anomaly location information 126 may specify a component-level location, zone-level location, placement classification, or other locational reference associated with the structure. For example, when the structure is an aircraft, the anomaly location information 126 may identify a particular fuselage section, indicate whether the anomaly is located on an exterior or interior surface or in an upper or lower region, and specify a location using standardized aerospace reference coordinates.

[0067] In general, an inspection order 112 is associated with a single anomaly such that each reported anomaly corresponds to an individual inspection order. However, in some examples, a single inspection order 112 may be associated with a plurality of anomalies, such as when similar anomaly conditions occur at multiple locations on a structure or across a group of related components. In such cases, the inspection order 112 may reference multiple anomalies to support coordinated inspection activities and consistent handling of related anomaly conditions. In some examples, the structured inspection management system 100 organizes anomaly-related information associated with inspection orders in a standardized format, reducing ambiguity and enabling consistent handling of inspection criteria, inspection responses, and inspection status.

[0068] As further shown in Figure 2, inspection orders are associated with predefined sets of structured inspection responses that are selectable in connection with inspection activities. In the example shown, the inspection interface presents one or more CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 25 - response fields 134 corresponding to different inspection contexts or inspection phases. For example, a first response field 134A may be associated with a predefined set of structured inspection responses indicative of whether a condition associated with an anomaly exists. Such structured inspection responses may include, without limitation, responses indicative that a condition does not exist, could not be verified, or does exist. Prior to performance of the inspection, the response field 134A may be unpopulated. Following performance of the inspection, the response field 134A is populated with a selected structured inspection response chosen from the predefined set. A second response field 134B may be associated with a predefined set of structured inspection responses indicative of acceptance or rejection of a condition of the anomaly following corrective action. Similar to the first response field, the second response field 134B may remain unpopulated until the corresponding inspection phase is reached and the inspection is performed, at which point the response field 134B is populated with a selected structured inspection response from the predefined set. The response fields and structured inspection responses shown in Figure 2 are provided as one non-limiting example. In other examples, different response fields, response values, or response hierarchies may be defined based on inspection criteria, inspection phase, or operational context. By enforcing selection from predefined structured inspection responses for each response field, the structured inspection management system 100 ensures that inspection input is captured in a consistent, non-ambiguous, and system-interpretable manner. This structured response enforcement enables system-driven inspection status determination and tracking.

[0069] In some examples the structured inspection management system 100 further includes one or more traceability fields 122 associated with inspection orders and structured inspection responses. The traceability fields 122 are configured to store traceability data enabling identification of at least one of a source or timing of a CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 26 - structured inspection response selected via the response enforcement module 106. In some examples, the traceability data includes timing information 144 indicating when a structured inspection response was selected or recorded, such as a date, time, or system-generated timestamp. In some examples, the traceability data additionally or alternatively includes source information 146 identifying a source associated with the structured inspection response, such as a user identifier, role identifier, or other system-recognized identifier associated with entry of the response.

[0070] The traceability fields 122 may be presented within the inspection interface of Figure 2, stored as metadata associated with the inspection order, or both. The specific form, number, and arrangement of traceability fields are implementation-dependent and may vary without departing from the scope of the disclosure. In this manner, the structured inspection management system 100 enables traceable association of structured inspection responses with inspection activity while maintaining flexibility across digital or manual workflows.

[0071] In some examples, the inspection interface may further include one or more supplemental input fields 140 associated with the inspection order, such as a notes field. Such supplemental input fields 140 may allow entry of contextual or reference information related to the inspection or corrective action. However, these supplemental fields are separate from the response field 134 and do not define allowable inspection outcomes. Inspection status determination is based on the selected structured inspection response rather than freeform supplemental input.

[0072] In some examples, the structured inspection management system 100 enables retrieval of inspection orders from the plurality of inspection orders 112 using a search interface 128. The search interface 128 may allow filtering or locating inspection orders based on predefined inspection order attributes, such as inspection order identifiers, inspection status values, or anomaly-related information associated with the CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 27 - inspection orders. This capability supports efficient navigation and management of inspection orders, particularly in environments involving large numbers of anomalies.

[0073] Referring to Figure 3A, an example inspection interface of a selected inspection order 112A, in a digital workflow mode, is shown. The inspection interface illustrates access to the selected inspection order via the structured inspection management system 100. As shown, the selected inspection order 112A includes inspection order–related information associated with the selected inspection order, including anomaly location information 126, inspection status information 116, and inspection order revision information 118. The inspection interface further includes inspection criteria 120 associated with the selected inspection order. The inspection criteria define one or more requirements for performance of an inspection associated with the anomaly and may be presented directly within the display or via linked or referenced inspection documentation associated with the inspection order. The inspection criteria provide the basis for evaluating the anomaly during performance of the inspection.

[0074] The selected inspection order 112A also includes a response field 134. The response field 134 defines allowable input for the inspection order by being associated with a predefined set of structured inspection responses applicable to performance of the inspection. The response field 134 restricts inspection input to selection from the predefined set of structured inspection responses and prevents entry of freeform or unstructured inspection responses. Prior to performance of the inspection, the response field 134 may be unpopulated. Following performance of the inspection, the response field 134 is populated with a selected structured inspection response chosen from the predefined set. As shown in Figure 3A, the response field 134 is selectable to show the predefined set of structured inspection responses in the form of a drop-down menu, as described in further detail in Figure 3B. In other examples, the predefined set of structured inspection response may be presented in other selectable formats, including, CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 28 - without limitation, presenting all available response options concurrently with selectable checkboxes, radio buttons, or similar selection mechanisms. Regardless of presentation format, the response field 134 enforces restriction of allowable input to the predefined set of structured inspection responses. In some examples, different response fields may be presented at different stages of an inspection order, each response field being associated with a different predefined set of structured inspection responses corresponding to a particular inspection phase.

[0075] Referring now to Figure 3B, the predefined set of structured inspection responses 136 are shown associated with the response field 134. The predefined set of structured inspection responses 136 defines all allowable inspection input for the response field 134 and is determined based on at least one of the inspection criteria associated with the inspection order or an inspection phase corresponding to performance of the inspection. Upon selection of at least one structured inspection response from the predefined set, the selected structured inspection response is received by the structured inspection management system 100 and stored in association with the response field 134 of the selected inspection order 112A. The selected structured inspection response represents an inspection outcome corresponding to performance of the inspection and is used by the structured inspection management system 100 for subsequent inspection status determination.

[0076] As shown in Figure 3C, the inspection interface illustrates a selected structured inspection response being entered for the selected inspection order. Upon selection of the structured inspection response, the response enforcement module 106 receives and stores the selected structured inspection response in association with the inspection order. Based on the selected structured inspection response, the status tracking module 108 automatically determines an inspection status for the inspection order and updates the inspection status information 116 without requiring freeform interpretation or CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 29 - manual status assignment. As illustrated, inspection status information 116 is updated to reflect completion of the inspection order based on the selected structured inspection response. In other examples, different inspection status outcomes may be automatically determined depending on the selected structured inspection response and, in some cases, an inspection phase associated with the inspection order. In this manner, the structured inspection management system 100 ensures that inspection status is system-determined based on structured inspection input, thereby reducing ambiguity and promoting consistent inspection status tracking across inspection orders and workflows.

[0077] Referring to Figure 4, an example of a manual workflow mode is illustrated, in which inspection activities are supported using a physical inspection record rather than an electronic inspection interface. In the manual workflow mode, inspection criteria 120 associated with an inspection order are provided on a physical inspection record, such as a printed inspection sheet, form, or checklist, which is made available to an inspector for use during performance of the inspection on the structure. The physical inspection record further includes one or more response fields 134 corresponding to predefined sets of structured inspection responses 136 applicable to performance of the inspection. The response fields 134 on the physical inspection record define allowable inspection input in the same manner as the response field 134 described with respect to Figures 3A–3C, by restricting inspection input to selection from the predefined set of structured inspection responses and preventing entry of freeform or unstructured inspection responses. The predefined set of structured inspection responses 136 may be presented on the physical inspection record as checkboxes, selection columns, marked fields, or other structured selection mechanisms.

[0078] Following performance of the inspection, at least one selected structured inspection response recorded on the physical inspection record is subsequently entered into the structured inspection management system 100 via an electronic interface. The CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 30 - response enforcement module 106 receives and stores the selected structured inspection response in association with the corresponding inspection order and the status tracking module 108 automatically determines and updates the inspection status information 116 for the inspection order in the same manner as described with respect to the digital workflow mode.

[0079] In this manner, the structured inspection management system 100 maintains consistent enforcement of allowable inspection input and system-driven inspection status determination across both digital and manual workflow modes. Although inspection activities may be performed using physical inspection records in the manual workflow mode, inspection outcomes are standardized through the use of predefined sets of structured inspection responses and are ultimately captured electronically to support consistent inspection status tracking, traceability, and downstream processing.

[0080] Referring now to Figure 5, a method 200 for structured anomaly inspection management is illustrated. The method 200 may be performed using the structured inspection management system described herein and is applicable to both digital and manual workflow modes. At block 202, the method 200 includes accessing, via the structured inspection management system, a selected inspection order associated with an anomaly from a plurality of inspection orders. The selected inspection order defines inspection criteria for performing an inspection associated with the anomaly. At block 204, the inspection criteria for the selected inspection order are presented. The inspection criteria defines one or more requirements against which performance of the inspection is evaluated and may be presented via an electronic interface, a physical inspection record, or a combination thereof.

[0081] At block 206, the method 200 includes enforcing restriction of allowable input for the selected inspection order to a predefined set of structured inspection CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 31 - responses associated with performance of the inspection. Enforcing restriction of allowable input prevents entry of freeform or unstructured inspection responses and ensures that inspection input is captured in a standardized and system-interpretable form. At block 208, the method 200 includes receiving at least one structured inspection response selected from the predefined set of structured inspection responses for the selected inspection order. The at least one structured inspection response represents an inspection outcome corresponding to performance of the inspection. At block 210, the method 200 includes automatically determining and storing an inspection status for the selected inspection order based on the at least one structured inspection response, without requiring manual interpretation of inspection outcomes. The inspection status is system-determined without requiring manual interpretation or assignment by a user.

[0082] When the inspection status indicates that the anomaly remains unresolved, the method 200 includes maintaining the selected inspection order in an incomplete state for subsequent inspection or corrective action. In this manner, unresolved anomalies remain tracked and available for further action until inspection outcomes indicate resolution. The method 200 thereby provides a structured, non-ambiguous inspection workflow in which inspection input is restricted to predefined structured inspection responses and inspection status is automatically determined based on those responses, promoting consistency, traceability, and repeatability across inspection activities and environments.

[0083] In some examples, the method further comprises making inspection results available for review, summarization, or export after determining and storing the inspection status for the selected inspection order. The inspection results may include inspection order identifiers, inspection status information, selected structured inspection responses, and associated traceability data. The method may further include exporting the inspection results in one or more structured data formats to enable use with external CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 32 - reporting tools, quality systems, or data analysis platforms. These additional actions may be performed without altering enforcement of allowable inspection input or system-driven inspection status determination described herein.

[0084] In some examples, the operations of method 200 may be implemented as computer-executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executed by one or more processors of the structured inspection management system. Execution of the instructions causes the one or more processors to perform the operations described with respect to Figure 5, including accessing inspection orders, enforcing restriction of allowable input to predefined structured inspection responses, receiving selected inspection responses, and automatically determining and storing inspection status.

[0085] In the above description, certain terms may be used such as "up," "down," "upper," "lower," "horizontal," "vertical," "left," "right," “over,” “under” and the like. These terms are used, where applicable, to provide some clarity of description when dealing with relative relationships. But, these terms are not intended to imply absolute relationships, positions, and / or orientations. For example, with respect to an object, an "upper" surface can become a "lower" surface simply by turning the object over. Nevertheless, it is still the same object. Further, the terms “including,” “comprising,” “having,” and variations thereof mean “including but not limited to” unless expressly specified otherwise. An enumerated listing of items does not imply that any or all of the items are mutually exclusive and / or mutually inclusive, unless expressly specified otherwise. The terms “a,” “an,” and “the” also refer to “one or more” unless expressly specified otherwise. Further, the term “plurality” can be defined as “at least two.” Moreover, unless otherwise noted, as defined herein a plurality of particular features does not necessarily mean every particular feature of an entire set or class of the particular features. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 33 -

[0086] The term “about” or “substantially” in some embodiments, is defined to mean within + / -5% of a given value, however in additional embodiments any disclosure of “about” may be further narrowed and claimed to mean within + / - 4% of a given value, within + / - 3% of a given value, within + / - 2% of a given value, within + / - 1% of a given value, or the exact given value. Further, when at least two values of a variable are disclosed, such disclosure is specifically intended to include the range between the two values regardless of whether they are disclosed with respect to separate embodiments or examples, and specifically intended to include the range of at least the smaller of the two values and / or no more than the larger of the two values. Additionally, when at least three values of a variable are disclosed, such disclosure is specifically intended to include the range between any two of the values regardless of whether they are disclosed with respect to separate embodiments or examples, and specifically intended to include the range of at least the A value and / or no more than the B value, where A may be any of the disclosed values other than the largest disclosed value, and B may be any of the disclosed values other than the smallest disclosed value.

[0087] Additionally, instances in this specification where one element is “coupled” to another element can include direct and indirect coupling. Direct coupling can be defined as one element coupled to and in some contact with another element. Indirect coupling can be defined as coupling between two elements not in direct contact with each other, but having one or more additional elements between the coupled elements. Further, as used herein, securing one element to another element can include direct securing and indirect securing. Additionally, as used herein, “adjacent” does not necessarily denote contact. For example, one element can be adjacent another element without being in contact with that element.

[0088] As used herein, the phrase “at least one of”, when used with a list of items, means different combinations of one or more of the listed items may be used and only CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 34 - one of the items in the list may be needed. The item may be a particular object, thing, or category. In other words, “at least one of” means any combination of items or number of items may be used from the list, but not all of the items in the list may be required. For example, “at least one of item A, item B, and item C” may mean item A; item A and item B; item B; item A, item B, and item C; or item B and item C. In some cases, “at least one of item A, item B, and item C” may mean, for example, without limitation, two of item A, one of item B, and ten of item C; four of item B and seven of item C; or some other suitable combination.

[0089] Unless otherwise indicated, the terms "first," "second," etc. are used herein merely as labels, and are not intended to impose ordinal, positional, or hierarchical requirements on the items to which these terms refer. Moreover, reference to, e.g., a “second” item does not require or preclude the existence of, e.g., a “first” or lower-numbered item, and / or, e.g., a “third” or higher-numbered item.

[0090] As used herein, a system, apparatus, structure, article, element, component, or hardware “configured to” perform a specified function is indeed capable of performing the specified function without any alteration, rather than merely having potential to perform the specified function after further modification. In other words, the system, apparatus, structure, article, element, component, or hardware “configured to” perform a specified function is specifically selected, created, implemented, utilized, programmed, and / or designed for the purpose of performing the specified function. As used herein, “configured to” denotes existing characteristics of a system, apparatus, structure, article, element, component, or hardware which enable the system, apparatus, structure, article, element, component, or hardware to perform the specified function without further modification. For purposes of this disclosure, a system, apparatus, structure, article, element, component, or hardware described as being “configured to” CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 35 - perform a particular function may additionally or alternatively be described as being “adapted to” and / or as being “operative to” perform that function.

[0091] The schematic flow chart diagrams included herein are generally set forth as logical flow chart diagrams. As such, the depicted order and labeled steps are indicative of one example of the presented method. Other steps and methods may be conceived that are equivalent in function, logic, or effect to one or more steps, or portions thereof, of the illustrated method. Additionally, the format and symbols employed are provided to explain the logical steps of the method and are understood not to limit the scope of the method. Although various arrow types and line types may be employed in the flow chart diagrams, they are understood not to limit the scope of the corresponding method. Indeed, some arrows or other connectors may be used to indicate only the logical flow of the method. For instance, an arrow may indicate a waiting or monitoring period of unspecified duration between enumerated steps of the depicted method. Additionally, the order in which a particular method occurs may or may not strictly adhere to the order of the corresponding steps shown.

[0092] Many of the functional units described in this specification have been labeled as modules, to more particularly emphasize their implementation independence. For example, a module may be implemented as a hardware circuit comprising custom very large scale integrated (“VLSI”) circuits or gate arrays, off-the-shelf semiconductors such as logic chips, transistors, or other discrete components. A module may also be implemented in programmable hardware devices such as a field programmable gate array (“FPGA”), programmable array logic, programmable logic devices or the like.

[0093] Modules may also be implemented in software for execution by various types of processors. An identified module of program code may, for instance, comprise one or more physical or logical blocks of computer instructions which may, for instance, be organized as an object, procedure, or function. Nevertheless, the executables of an CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 36 - identified module need not be physically located together but may comprise disparate instructions stored in different locations which, when joined logically together, comprise the module and achieve the stated purpose for the module.

[0094] Indeed, a module of program code may be a single instruction, or many instructions, and may even be distributed over several different code segments, among different programs, and across several memory devices. Similarly, operational data may be identified and illustrated herein within modules and may be embodied in any suitable form and organized within any suitable type of data structure. The operational data may be collected as a single data set or may be distributed over different locations including over different storage devices, and may exist, at least partially, merely as electronic signals on a system or network. Where a module or portions of a module are implemented in software, the program code may be stored and / or propagated on in one or more computer readable medium(s).

[0095] The computer program product may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present invention.

[0096] The computer readable storage medium can be a tangible device that can retain and store instructions for use by an instruction execution device. The computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but is not limited to, an electronic storage device, a magnetic storage device, an optical storage device, an electromagnetic storage device, a semiconductor storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. A non-exhaustive list of more specific examples of the computer readable storage medium includes the following: a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (“RAM”), a read-only memory (“ROM”), an erasable programmable read-only memory (“EPROM” or Flash memory), a static random access memory (“SRAM”), a portable compact disc read-only memory (“CD-ROM”), a digital versatile disk (“DVD”), CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 37 - a memory stick, a floppy disk, a mechanically encoded device such as punch-cards or raised structures in a groove having instructions recorded thereon, and any suitable combination of the foregoing. A computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmitted through a wire.

[0097] Computer readable program instructions described herein can be downloaded to respective computing / processing devices from a computer readable storage medium or to an external computer or external storage device via a network, for example, the Internet, a local area network, a wide area network and / or a wireless network. The network may comprise copper transmission cables, optical transmission fibers, wireless transmission, routers, firewalls, switches, gateway computers and / or edge servers. A network adapter card or network interface in each computing / processing device receives computer readable program instructions from the network and forwards the computer readable program instructions for storage in a computer readable storage medium within the respective computing / processing device.

[0098] Computer readable program instructions for carrying out operations of the present invention may be assembler instructions, instruction-set-architecture (“ISA”) instructions, machine instructions, machine dependent instructions, microcode, firmware instructions, state-setting data, or either source code or object code written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Smalltalk, C++ or the like, and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the "C" programming language or similar programming languages. The computer readable program instructions may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 38 - on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (“LAN”) or a wide area network (“WAN”), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider). In some embodiments, electronic circuitry including, for example, programmable logic circuitry, field-programmable gate arrays (“FPGA”), or programmable logic arrays (“PLA”) may execute the computer readable program instructions by utilizing state information of the computer readable program instructions to personalize the electronic circuitry, in order to perform aspects of the present invention.

[0099] Aspects of the present invention are described herein with reference to flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams of methods, apparatus (systems), and computer program products according to embodiments of the invention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and / or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer readable program instructions.

[00100] These computer readable program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions / acts specified in the flowchart and / or block diagram block or blocks. These computer readable program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable storage medium that can direct a computer, a programmable data processing apparatus, and / or other devices to function in a particular manner, such that the computer readable storage medium having instructions stored therein comprises an article of manufacture including instructions which implement CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 39 - aspects of the function / act specified in the flowchart and / or block diagram block or blocks.

[00101] The computer readable program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other device to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer, other programmable apparatus or other device to produce a computer implemented process, such that the instructions which execute on the computer, other programmable apparatus, or other device implement the functions / acts specified in the flowchart and / or block diagram block or blocks.

[00102] The schematic flowchart diagrams and / or schematic block diagrams in the Figures illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of apparatuses, systems, methods and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present invention. In this regard, each block in the schematic flowchart diagrams and / or schematic block diagrams may represent a module, segment, or portion of code, which comprises one or more executable instructions of the program code for implementing the specified logical function(s).

[00103] Although various arrow types and line types may be employed in the flowchart and / or block diagrams, they are understood not to limit the scope of the corresponding embodiments. Indeed, some arrows or other connectors may be used to indicate only the logical flow of the depicted embodiment. For instance, an arrow may indicate a waiting or monitoring period of unspecified duration between enumerated steps of the depicted embodiment. It will also be noted that each block of the block diagrams and / or flowchart diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and / or flowchart diagrams, can be implemented by special purpose hardware-based systems that perform the specified functions or acts, or combinations of special purpose hardware and program code. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 40 -

[00104] The present subject matter may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from its spirit or essential characteristics. The described examples are to be considered in all respects only as illustrative and not restrictive. All changes which come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are to be embraced within their scope. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 APPENDIX This specification includes the following appendix as a further illustration of embodiments of the specification. Subject matter of the appendix may be combined with other subject matter in this specification. The appendix is not intended to limit the scope of disclosure of the specification. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 1 - WORK ORDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR MANAGING NON- CONFORMANCE ANOMALIES IN A STRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED METHOD AND SYSTEM BACKGROUND

[0001] Managing work orders for non-conformance anomalies in large or complex structures, such as aircraft, rockets, microchips, and other assemblies, can present significant challenges due to the volume, complexity, and distribution of anomalies. Conventional work order management systems often rely on server- dependent infrastructures, freeform text input, and rigid Quality Management System (QMS) integrations, leading to inefficiencies, inconsistent data handling, and difficulties in maintaining traceability. Additionally, many systems lack integration with anomaly mapping tools or structured validation processes, making it difficult to track work order progress effectively.

[0002] Traditional anomaly verification and validation workflows often result in ambiguous inspection responses, inefficient processing, and limited adaptability to hybrid digital and manual workflows. Many existing systems fail to support both online and offline environments, restricting functionality, increasing error rates, and complicating the synchronization of digital and non-digital records. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 2 - DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0004] Reference throughout this specification to “one embodiment,” “an embodiment,” or similar language means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment is included in at least one embodiment of the present disclosure. Appearances of the phrases “in one embodiment,” “in an embodiment,” and similar language throughout this specification may, but do not necessarily, all refer to the same embodiment. Similarly, the use of the term “implementation” means an implementation having a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with one or more embodiments of the present disclosure, however, absent an express correlation to indicate otherwise, an implementation may be associated with one or more embodiments.

[0005] In order that the advantages of the subject matter may be more readily understood, a more particular description of the subject matter briefly described above will be rendered by reference to specific embodiments that are illustrated in the appended drawings. Understanding that these drawings depict only typical embodiments of the subject matter and are not therefore to be considered to be limiting of its scope, the subject matter will be described and explained with additional specificity and detail through the use of the drawings.

[0006] The subject matter of the present application has been developed in response to the present state of the art, and in particular, in response to the problems and needs in work order management systems that have not yet been fully solved by currently techniques. Accordingly, the subject matter of the present application has been developed to provide a work order management system for non-conformance anomalies in a structure and associated method and system that overcome at least some of the above-mentioned shortcomings of prior art techniques.

[0007] Disclosed herein is a work order management system for managing non- conformance anomalies in a structure. As used herein, non-conformance (NC) anomalies CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 3 - refer to deviations from predefined design, manufacturing, or operational specifications, including but not limited to defects or other anomalies affecting the performance, integrity, reliability, or appearance of the structure. NC anomalies, hereinafter referred to as “anomalies” can arise from manufacturing inconsistencies, material degradation, assembly errors, environmental damage, operational stresses, fatigue, or other factors that cause a component or system to fall outside acceptable tolerances. Proper verification and validation of these anomalies are important for ensuring compliance with safety and performance standards while facilitating efficient corrective actions.

[0008] The disclosed work order management system improves anomaly verification and validation by providing structured, non-ambiguous verification and validation input handling, operating in both connected and offline environments, and enabling seamless work order status tracking. Further, the work order management system supports both electronic and manual processing modes, improving response consistency, enhancing deployment flexibility, and streamlining verification and validation workflows.

[0009] The work order management system is particularly beneficial for large and / or complex structures and assemblies, such as aircraft, ships, industrial equipment, or large infrastructure components. By standardizing anomaly verification and validation, the work order management system enhances traceability, reduces validation time, and improves the accuracy and efficiency of inspection workflows.

[0010] Referring to Figure 1, according to one embodiment, a work order management system 100 for managing anomaly verification and validation in a structure is shown. The work order management system 100 provides an organized framework for storing, retrieving, tracking, and updating work orders associated with anomalies to ensure consistency, traceability, and compliance in anomaly management workflows.

[0011] As used herein, the term “verification” refers to the process of confirming that a reported anomaly has been correctly identified and accurately documented before CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 4 - corrective action is performed. Verification may help ensure that an anomaly description, location, and severity are properly assessed, typically through inspection or measurement, to determine whether corrective action is needed. In contrast, as used herein, the term “validation” refers to the process of confirming that an anomaly has been properly addressed and meets the required quality, safety, and / or performance standards. Validation ensures that any needed corrective actions have been successfully implemented and that the anomaly no longer impacts the functionality or compliance of the structure. The validation process typically follows an inspection plan that defines validation criteria, which may include physical inspections, functional testing, or compliance checks based on regulatory or operational standards. In other words, verification occurs before corrective action, while validation occurs after corrective action. Together, verification and validation provide a structured anomaly management process.

[0012] The work order management system 100 facilitates structured verification and validation for each anomaly in a structure. As used herein, a structure refers to any physical assembly, system, or component subject to anomaly verification and validation, including but not limited to aircraft, ships, industrial machinery, microchips, and large- scale infrastructure components. Structures may be composed of multiple interconnected parts, materials, and subsystems, each of which may be susceptible to anomalies that impact performance, safety, or compliance. Anomalies may vary in size and severity, ranging from minor surface imperfections to large-scale structural failures that require extensive corrective actions. Proper verification and validation of anomalies is important for ensuring the long-term integrity, reliability, and safety of a structure over its operational lifespan.

[0013] In some examples, the work order management system 100 includes a work order module 102, a display module 104, a response module 106, a status tracking module 108, and a traceability module 110. The work order management system 100 CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 5 - may be implemented in various configurations and the modules described herein are not limited to any specific arrangement. In some implementations, the modules may be combined, subdivided, or omitted, depending on the particular application or system architecture. Additionally, the functionality of one or more modules may be distributed across multiple systems or performed manually or as part of a hybrid digital and manual workflow. Further, the work order management system 100 may include additional components or features beyond those explicitly described, depending on the specific operational requirements.

[0014] The work order module 102 is configured to store, manage, and retrieve work orders associated with anomalies in a structure. In some examples, the work order module 102 retrieves order data from at least one of an external database, manually uploaded files, or converted paper records, to allow integration with digital data sources while also supporting manual workflows where orders originate from physical records. Each work order corresponds to a reported anomaly and serves a structured record for tracking at least one of anomaly verification, corrective action, and validation. The work order module 102 may store work orders in various formats, including a database, a digital ledger, a structured file system, or a physical record-keeping system, depending on the implementation of the work order management system 100.

[0015] In some examples, the work order module 102 may retrieve work order data corresponding to the work order from multiple sources, enabling flexible data integration. Work order data may be obtained from external databases, manually uploaded files, or structured paper records that have been converted into digital format. This capability allows the work order management system 100 to support both automated and manual workflows, ensuring compatibility with diverse data entry methods and enterprise systems. By integrating data from various sources, the work order module 102 facilitates efficient work order tracking and anomaly verification across different operational environments. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 6 -

[0016] Referring to Figure 2, a work order management system 100 is shown. The work order management system 100 includes a plurality of work orders 112. Each one of the plurality of work orders 112 includes work order-specific data, such as data fields to facilitate anomaly tracking, work order management, and traceability. These fields may include, but are not limited to, a work order identifier 114, to uniquely identify the work order; a work order status 116, indicating whether the work order is, for example, active, completed, pending verification / validation, queued; a work order revision 118 (see, e.g., Figure 3), to track modifications to the work order; a unique anomaly identifier (not shown), to associated the work order 112 with a specific anomaly; and a timestamp 122, which may be associated with work order creation, work order updates, verification, or validation events, etc. In some examples, each work order 112 may include additional details related to the work order 112 and the associated anomaly, such as a work order description 124 and an anomaly location 126. The anomaly location 126 may specify any of a component level, zone level, placement classification, or specific locational reference points (e.g., station, waterline, and buttline coordinates). For example, if the structure is an aircraft, the anomaly location 126 may indicate a specific fuselage section, whether the anomaly is on the exterior or interior or in an upper or lower area, and the precise location based on standardized aerospace reference points.

[0017] A specific work order, work order 112A, is highlighted within the plurality of work orders 112. The work order 112A includes a work order identifier 114A, a work order description 124A, an anomaly location 126A, a work order status 116A, and at least one timestamp 122A. The work order identifier 114A uniquely identifies the work order within the work order management system 100, while the work order description 124A may provide a brief summary of the anomaly or correction action needed. The anomaly location 126A provides the position of the anomaly within the structure, and the work order status 116A indicates the current processing state of the work order, such as CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 7 - “Pending,” “In Progress”, “Completed”, “Enqueued”, “Awaiting Approval” or “Rejected”.

[0018] Each one of the plurality of work orders 112 is generally associated with a single anomaly, which means that each reported anomaly in the structure corresponds to an individual work order. However, in some cases, a work order 112 may apply to multiple anomalies, such as when a similar anomaly occurs at multiple locations on the structure or when a batch of components exhibits the same non-conformance issue. In such cases, the work order 112 may reference a plurality of anomalies to streamline the verification, corrective action, and validation process for related anomalies. For example, if multiple fasteners on an aircraft wing are improperly installed, a single work order may be issued to address and verify correction actions for all affected fasteners.

[0019] In some examples, each work order 112 may be associated with an anomaly artifact, which serves as a structured representation of an anomaly within a system. The anomaly artifact may include the unique anomaly identifier, anomaly inspection instructions, and anomaly location. By standardizing anomaly representation, the anomaly artifact enables efficient retrieval, verification, and tracking of anomalies throughout the work order management system. The anomaly artifact remains associated with a work order throughout its lifecycle, ensuring traceability across work order revisions. In some examples, the anomaly artifact may include image attachments linked to anomaly records. These attachments may capture visual evidence of anomalies, corrective actions, or validation results, improving traceability and supporting documentation requirements.

[0020] In some examples, the work order identifier 114 and the unique anomaly identifier for the anomaly may be the same value, such as when the work order management system 100 enforces a one-to-one mapping between anomaly and work orders for traceability. In other cases, the work order identifier 114 and unique anomaly identifier may be different, such as when a single work order applies to multiple CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 8 - anomalies or when an organization assigns separate numbering conventions for tracking work orders and anomalies. For example, a work order identifier 114 may follow an internal work order sequence, while a unique anomaly identifier may be assigned based on anomaly type, location, or origin.

[0021] The work order module 102 is configured to retrieve work orders 112. That is, the work order management system 100 enables access to stored work orders for anomaly verification, corrective action tracking, and validation. In some examples, the work order module 102 is enabled to efficiently retrieve a work order 112 based on search parameters, including but not limited to the work order identifier 114, the anomaly location 126, an anomaly severity, inspector assignments, or the work order status 116. As shown in Figure 2, a search interface 128 may allow users to input search criteria to filter or locate specific work orders within the plurality of work orders 112 stored in the work order management system 100. The search interface 128 may support structured search queries, such as dropdown selection for predefined anomaly categories, as well as freeform text entry for entering specific identifiers, locations, or descriptions. In some examples, search results may be sorted or filtered dynamically based on user preferences, such as priority level, verification status, or assigned personnel.

[0022] The work order module 102 may be configured to support both a digital workflow mode and a manual workflow mode. In the digital workflow mode, the work order management system 100 retrieves work orders through network-connected systems, including structured database queries or integrations with external QMS or anomaly tracking systems. That is, while in a digital workflow mode, the work order management system 100, includes at least one of retrieving the work order from a network-connected system, modifying the work order using digital documentation via an electronic interface, and automatically updating the work order status based on electronic inputs. In contrast, in the manual workflow mode, work orders may be retrieved from physical records such as printed or work order logs, anomaly tracking forms, or maintenance reports. That is, CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 9 - while in a manual workflow mode, the work order management system 100, includes at least one of retrieving the work order from a physical record, modifying the work order using written documentation, and updating the work order status with manually entered inputs. The work order management system 100 may also support hybrid processing, where manually retrieved work orders are later digitized for synchronization with the digital workflow mode.

[0023] In some examples, the work order management system 100 may associate a digital representation of the structure with each anomaly record. This digital representation may include spatially mapped anomaly locations, anomaly images, or inspection overlays, allowing inspectors and engineers to visually assess anomaly distribution and trends. Integration with digital anomaly maps may help with validation workflows, reducing the need for manual cross-referencing and minimizing inconsistencies in anomaly resolution tracking.

[0024] Referring back to Figure 1, the work order management system 100 includes the display module 104 that is configured to present work order details to a user in a structured format. The display module 104 enables visualization of work order attributes, including but not limited to the work order identifier 114, the work order status 116, the anomaly location 126, etc. The display module 104 provides an interface through which users can review work order details, monitor work order status changes, and access relevant anomaly verification and validation information. In some examples, the display module 104 is implemented as a graphical user interface (GUI), which enables digital access to work order data. In other examples, the display module 104 may support printed output formats for manual workflow modes, where work orders are presented on physical records for offline processing. Depending on the configuration of the work order management system 100, the display module 104 may present information in various layouts, such as tabular formats, expandable lists, or dashboard views. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 10 -

[0025] As shown in Figure 2, the display module 104 is presented as a graphical user interface, to enable a user to interact with work order data dynamically. Users may navigate the plurality of work orders 112 to view specific details about each work order. In some examples, the display module 104 may expand or collapse work order details for specific work order to reveal additional information. As shown in Figure 3, when a work order is expanded, such as the work order 112A, the display module 104 presents comprehensive work order details, which may include the work order revision 118, which tracks modification or updates to the work order over time. The expanded work order view may also display anomaly-specific information, inspector comments, associated corrective actions, validation history, and timestamps of key work order events (e.g., creation, verification, validation, and status changes). In some examples, the display module 104 may highlight changes between different work order revisions (e.g., color coding, revision history logs), allowing a user to compare past and current work order details. This may improve traceability by providing a structured view of how a work order has evolved through various stages. In digital workflow mode, these features are available through the user interface, whereas in manual workflow mode, historical revisions may be recorded on printed reports or structured reference sheets.

[0026] In a manual workflow mode, the display module 104 may generate physical reports, such as printer forms or reference sheets containing work order information. These reports may be structured to mirror the digital format, to help with consistency between online and offline records. In hybrid environments (i.e. a combination of digital and manual workflows), the display module 104 may support offline access, to enable users to generate local copies of work order data for use without requiring continuous system connectivity.

[0027] As shown in Figure 4A, the display module 104 may generate structured printouts, such as printed form 130, containing key work order details, such as the work order identifier 114, the anomaly location 126, the work order revision 118, response CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 11 - dates, and assigned users 129. The printed form 130 may also include predefined response fields, to enable manual entry of verification and validation inputs that, in some examples, can later be digitized for system integration. In manual workflow mode, these structured forms ensure consistency in offline verification and validation.

[0028] As shown in Figure 4B, the display module 104 may also export work order data into structured digital formats, such as spreadsheet 132, for manual review or offline record-keeping. The spreadsheet 132 may support additional functionalities such as sorting, filtering, and bulk updates, which allow structured offline work order management with later synchronization to the digital system. In some examples, the spreadsheet 132 may serve as an intermediary format, to enable integration with other enterprise systems, external databases or data migration processes.

[0029] Additionally, the work order management system 100 may support barcode or QR code scanning to streamline work order retrieval and minimize data entry errors during digitization. In some examples, printed sheets may also include barcodes or scannable codes linked to corresponding digital records, improving data accuracy during manual-to-digital transitions. Manual records may be digitized via scanning, optical character recognition (OCR), or manual data entry, enabling seamless system integration. For example, OCR technology can convert handwritten verification marks or inspector signatures into structured digital records. Digitization may help ensure consistency between manual and digital workflows.

[0030] In some examples, the display module 104 provides a structured way to visualize the work order status 116. For example, the work order status 116 may be displayed using color-coded indicators, progress bars, or status labels, to reflect the status of a work order. For example, a work order marked as “Pending Verification” may be displayed in yellow, while a work order marked “Completed” may be displayed in green. The display module 104 may also support notifications or alerts, prompting a user to take action or work orders requiring verification, corrective action, or validation. In CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 12 - some examples, automated alerts may be triggered for work orders that exceed a predefined processing time or require urgent resolution.

[0031] Referring back to Figure 1, the work order management system 100 also includes the response module 106 configured to receive anomaly verification and anomaly validation inputs for a work order. The response module 106 enables structured input collection such that verification and validation processes are standardized across different workflows. The response module 106 present predefined response options. Accordingly, predefined response options eliminate ambiguity by requiring users to select from established choices rather than relying on freeform text or subjective descriptions. In some examples, predefined responses may be tailored based on the work order type, anomaly category, or inspection criteria.

[0032] The response module 106 enables users to select an anomaly verification response from an anomaly from a set of predefined verification responses. Verification responses may indicate where an anomaly has been successfully identified, remains unverified, or way incorrectly reported. In some examples, verification responses may include options including but not limited to “Condition Does Exist”, “Condition Does Not Exist”, “Could Not Verify Condition”, or “Deferred”. These structured choices ensure that anomaly verification follows a standardized process. In some examples, verification responses may be linked to inspection requirements, automatically restricting certain responses based on the selected response.

[0033] Similarly, the response module 106 enables a user to select an anomaly validation response for an anomaly from a set of predefined validation responses. Validation responses indicate whether corrective actions have successfully resolved the anomaly or if additional corrective measures are required. In some examples, validation responses may include options including but not limited to “Accept”, “Reject”, “Rework Required”, “Pending Additional Action”, or “Escalated for Review”. The structured nature of these responses ensures that anomaly resolution follows a consistent validation CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 13 - framework. In some examples, validation responses may be linked to corrective action records, preventing validation from being completed unless corrective measures are properly logged. The predefined verification and validation responses described herein are for illustrative purposes only, and other responses terms with the same or similar meaning may be substituted based on system configuration, industry standards, or organizational requirements.

[0034] In some examples, the response module 106 may restrict response selection based on assigned user roles. For instance, only designated inspectors or authorized personnel may select verification and validation responses. The traceability module 110, described below, may enforce this restriction by associating user identifiers with predefined role-based permissions, ensuring that only qualified users can submit responses.

[0035] In some examples, the response module 106 may track a validation attempt count, which records the number of times an anomaly validation response has been submitted. This count may be used to monitor repeated validation attempts, to ensure that anomalies requiring multiple corrective actions are properly documented and addressed.

[0036] As shown in Figure 5A, the response module 106 may present a verification predefined selection menu 135, referred to in the figure as a “Buyoff” menu, which allows a user to select an anomaly verification response from a set of predefined verification responses 138. The term “buyoff” as used herein, refers to the process of verifying whether a reported anomaly exists based on inspection criteria. Similarly, the response module 106 may present a validation predefined selection menu 137, referred to in the figure as a “Buyback” menu, which allows a user to select an anomaly validation response from the set of predefined validation responses (not shown). The term buyback as used herein, refers to the process of validating whether the reported anomaly has been resolved based on inspection criteria. Referring to Figure 5B, the verification predefined CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 14 - selection menu 135 displaying the set of predefined verification responses 138 available for buyoff is shown. The user selects a response from this set, which ensures that freeform text input is not allowed, thereby enforcing structured and standardized verification inputs. Likewise, the validation predefined selection menu 137 would function in the same manner.

[0037] In some examples, the response module 106 may include additional fields or menus to capture supplemental information related to anomaly verification and anomaly validation. For example, an input field for user-entered notes, such as the “Buyback Notes” field 140, may be provided to allow a user to enter freeform comments relevant to the anomaly validation process. This may be useful for documenting additional context regarding corrective actions taken, reasons for rejection, or special considerations during validation. Additionally, an optional field for identifying information, such as the field labeled “Buyback SI” field 142 (system identifier), may be included. This field may store a supplier-specific anomaly reference, which can be used to link the verification process in the work order management system 100 to a corresponding record in an external Quality Management System (QMS). By incorporating structured identifiers alongside freeform notes, the response module 106 enhances traceability and recordkeeping for anomaly validation workflows.

[0038] The response module 106 may be implemented as a digital interface for electronic responses or as a structured paper-based form for manual workflows. In manual workflows, the response module 106 may be implemented using printed forms that include predefined response fields for anomaly verification and validation. These forms may allow users to mark checkboxes, write notes, or provide signatures confirming inspection results. In a manual workflow mode, planners may organize inspection plans using paper-based records, such as coverage panels listing work orders and verification responses. These paper-based plans may include anomaly details, verification criteria, and inspector notes, which are later referenced during validation. In some examples, the CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 15 - response module 106 may support hybrid workflows, where manual responses are later digitized through scanning, OCR, or manual data entry to maintain synchronization between physical records and a digital work order management system.

[0039] Referring back to Figure 1, the work order management system 100 also includes the status tracking module 108. The status tracking module 108 is configured to monitor and update the status of each work order as it progresses through verification, corrective action, and validation. That is, the status tracking module 108 ensures that each work order is consistently classified according to predefined status categories.

[0040] The status tracking module 108 updates the work order status based on anomaly verification and validation response selected through the response module 106. In some examples, if the anomaly verification response indicates that the anomaly does not exist, the work order status is set to completed. Similarly, if the anomaly verification response indicates that the anomaly exists, the work order status remains active to proceed with corrective action. Similarly, during validation, if the anomaly validation response indicates that the anomaly is resolved, the work order status is set to completed. If the anomaly validation response indicates that the anomaly remains unresolved, the work order status remains active, to ensure that additional corrective action can be taken as needed.

[0041] The status tracking module 108 may integrate with automated workflows to trigger specific actions based on status changes. For example, a work order marked as requiring further action may be automatically re-queued for additional verification, while a work order marked as completed (i.e., resolved work order) may be locked to prevent modification, unless manually reactivated by an authorized user. Additionally, the status tracking module 108 may generate notifications or alerts when a work order remains in a particular status for an extended period, ensuring timely resolution of anomalies.

[0042] The work order management system 100 further includes a traceability module 110, which is configured to record at least one of response dates and user CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 16 - identifiers associated with actions related to a work order. These actions may include work order creation, work order retrieval, verification and validation responses, corrective actions, and work order status updates. Accordingly, in some examples, the traceability module 110 provides an auditable log. By including response dates and user identifiers into a structured format, the traceability module 110 may improve accountability and transparency in anomaly management workflows.

[0043] Referring to Figure 2 the work order management system 100 includes at least one traceability field, such a first user identifier 144 associated with a verification response 134 and a second user identifier 146 for a validation response 136. Additionally, the work order management system 100 may include a response date 152 corresponding to one a verification response 134 or a validation response 136.

[0044] The user identifiers 144 and 146 may be any of various identifiers including but not limited to, numerical IDs, alphanumeric codes, digital signatures, or role-based designations (e.g., inspection, supervisor). Similarly, the response date 152 may indicate the specific time an action was records, which may be stored in formats such as a timestamp, date-only entry, or system-generated log entry. In some examples, the additional metadata, such as a device used for entry, approval hierarchies, system validation status, and timestamps associated with verification, validation, or status updates. These timestamps may indicate when a verification response was submitted, when a validation action occurred, or when a work order status was modified, to ensure an accurate chronological record of interactions within the work order management system 100.

[0045] In some examples, the work order management system 100 may serve as a bridge between separate Quality Management Systems (QMSs), to enable direct traceability between anomalies recorded in different organizations' QMS environments. For example, a work order identifier 114 may correspond to a non-conformance report (NCR) in a first QMS, while a system identifier 142 (SI) may serve as a key reference in CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 17 - a second QMS. This linkage allows verification and anomaly resolution to be tracked across multiple systems, which ensures that anomaly verification occurring in one QMS can be referenced for closure or status updates in another.

[0046] By providing cross-system traceability, the order management system 100 helps prevent duplicate inspections, to ensure that once an anomaly has been verified and resolved in one QMS, it does not require redundant verification in another. This not only reduces processing overhead but also enhances efficiency by allowing manufacturers and suppliers to maintain real-time anomaly resolution tracking.

[0047] Additionally, the work order management system 100 may enable further action in either QMS, such as the removal of a verification record in one system due to traceability of its resolution in another. For example, an NCR tracked in a supplier’s QMS may be directly linked to a manufacturer’s QMS. When the system confirms that an anomaly has been successfully verified and resolved at the supplier level, it may allow the corresponding verification record in the manufacturer’s QMS to be closed or removed, preventing redundant anomaly handling. This capability is particularly beneficial in supply chain environments where manufacturers and suppliers coordinate anomaly tracking, verification, and resolution. However, the work order management system 100 remains flexible for use cases where direct QMS-to-QMS linking is not required, such as customer-driven inspections.

[0048] The system architecture described herein is well-suited for integrating structured anomaly tracking, verification workflows, and digital anomaly representations. By supporting automated data retrieval, structured input verification and validation, and traceability-enhancing features, the system can enable seamless coordination between anomaly identification, corrective actions, and validation processes. This structured approach can be utilized to support advanced anomaly management methodologies and structured verification frameworks used in complex manufacturing and quality control environments. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 18 -

[0049] Referring to Figure 6, one example of a method 200 for structured anomaly verification and validations is shown. The method 200 provides a systematic approach for processing anomalies in a work order management system to ensure consistency, traceability, and compliance with verification and validation requirements. The method 200 includes (block 202) retrieving a work order associated with an anomaly from a work order management system. The work order may be retrieved from a digital workflow mode, such as a network-connected system, or from a manual workflow mode, such as a physical record. The retrieved work order contains at least a work order identified, a work order status, and a unique anomaly identifier identifying the anomaly.

[0050] The method 200 further includes selecting (block 204) an anomaly verification response for the anomaly from a set of predefined verification responses. The verification response is chosen from a predefined selection menu that standardizes verification input to eliminate ambiguity. The available verification responses may include terms indicative of verification approval or rejection, such as “Condition Does Exist”, “Condition Does Not Exist”, or “Could Not Verify Condition”. Based on the selected anomaly verification response, the work order status is updated (block 206) within the work order management system. If the anomaly verification response indicates that the anomaly does not exist, the work order status may be set to “Completed”. Conversely, if the anomaly verification response confirms the existence of the anomaly, the work order status remains active, allowing the anomaly to proceed to corrective action.

[0051] If the anomaly is verified, at least one corrective action is performed (block 208) to address the anomaly. Corrective actions may include repairing, replacing, or modifying a component to bring it into compliance with quality or performance standards. In some examples, corrective actions may be logged in the work order management system to ensure traceability and compliance tracking. Once corrective action is completed, the method 200 includes selecting (block 210) an anomaly validation CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 19 - response from a set of predefined validation responses. The validation response indicates whether the corrective action has successfully resolved the anomaly. Available validation responses may include terms such as “Accept”, “Reject”, or “Rework Required”. Based on the selected anomaly validation response, the work order status is updated (block 212). If the anomaly validation response indicates that the anomaly has been resolved, the work order status is set to “Completed”. If the validation response indicates that the anomaly remains unresolved, the work order remains active for further corrective action.

[0052] If the anomaly remains unresolved, the method 200 further includes re- queuing (block 214) the work order in the work order management system for additional corrective action and validation. Re-queuing ensures that anomalies requiring further resolution remain actively tracked and are not inadvertently closed. In some examples, re-queuing may involve reassigning the work order to a different inspector, triggering additional review steps, or escalating the anomaly for higher-level approval.

[0053] Referring to Figure 7, one example of a system 300 for structured anomaly verification and validation is shown. The system 300 is configured to execute the method 200 described in Figure 6. The system 300 includes a work order management system 302 that stores and manages a plurality of work orders, where each work order is associated with an anomaly of a structure. A retrieval module 304 retrieves a work order from the work order management system 302 for processing.

[0054] The system 300 further includes a verification module 306, which is configured to receive an anomaly verification response selected from a set of predefined verification responses and update the work order status accordingly. If the anomaly is verified, a corrective action module 308 of the system 300 tracks at least one corrective action performed on the anomaly. A validation module 310 of the system 300 is configured to receive an anomaly validation response from a set of predefined validation responses and update the work order status based on the validation result. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 20 -

[0055] If the anomaly remains unresolved, a work order tracking module 312 of the system 300 re-queues the work order in the work order management system 302 for subsequent corrective action and validation. The structured components of the system 300 ensure consistent anomaly verification, validation, and work order tracking, thereby maintaining traceability and compliance throughout the anomaly resolution process.

[0056] The work order management system 100 may be implemented in various industries where structured anomaly verification and validation are important. One application is in aerospace manufacturing, where airline customers or external inspectors verify product quality at supplier facilities. For example, during aircraft production, airline representatives may use the system to inspect components and identify anomalies before final delivery. By providing structured anomaly tracking, the work order management system 100 ensures that anomalies are properly recorded, corrective actions are taken, and resolution is documented in an auditable format.

[0057] In another example, supply chain manufacturers may leverage the work order management system 100 to prevent anomalies from propagating into downstream production. A large manufacturer may use the system at supplier facilities to validate that anomaly issues are resolved before integrating components into final assembly. By enforcing anomaly resolution at the supplier level, the work order management system improves collaboration between manufacturers and their suppliers, reducing delays and minimizing costly rework.

[0058] The work order management system 100 also provides an optimized workflow for inspectors working on an assembly line. An inspector may retrieve a set of anomalies related to a specific product type (e.g., a 737 airplane) or a unit identifier (e.g., airplane number 9010) of a structure. The work order management system 100 may dynamically retrieve the associated anomalies from a central database or a locally uploaded dataset and presents relevant anomaly details from an external repository (e.g., SharePoint). The inspector follows structured response prompts to verify the anomaly, CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 21 - selecting from predefined verification options such as "Condition Does Exists" or "Condition Does Not Exist." If the anomaly is confirmed, corrective action may be initiated before validation. In some examples, all user responses, timestamps, and revision histories are stored for traceability and future audits.

[0059] The work order management system 100 can also be applied across other industries, including automotive manufacturing, industrial equipment production, and retail supply chains, to ensure consistent quality verification. The structured anomaly tracking and integration capabilities improve overall product quality, enhance regulatory compliance, and foster trust between manufacturers, suppliers, and customers.

[0060] The described features, structures, advantages, and / or characteristics of the subject matter of the present disclosure may be combined in any suitable manner in one or more embodiments and / or implementations. In the above description, numerous specific details are provided to impart a thorough understanding of embodiments of the subject matter of the present disclosure. One skilled in the relevant art will recognize that the subject matter of the present disclosure may be practiced without one or more of the specific features, details, components, materials, and / or methods of a particular embodiment or implementation. In other instances, additional features and advantages may be recognized in certain embodiments and / or implementations that may not be present in all embodiments or implementations. Further, in some instances, well-known structures, materials, or operations are not shown or described in detail to avoid obscuring aspects of the subject matter of the present disclosure. The features and advantages of the subject matter of the present disclosure will become more fully apparent from the above description and appended claims, or may be learned by the practice of the subject matter as set forth above.

[0061] In the above description, certain terms may be used such as "up," "down," "upper," "lower," "horizontal," "vertical," "left," "right," and the like. These terms are used, where applicable, to provide some clarity of description when dealing with relative CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 22 - relationships. But, these terms are not intended to imply absolute relationships, positions, and / or orientations. For example, with respect to an object, an "upper" surface can become a "lower" surface simply by turning the object over. Nevertheless, it is still the same object. Further, the terms “including,” “comprising,” “having,” and variations thereof mean “including but not limited to” unless expressly specified otherwise. An enumerated listing of items does not imply that any or all of the items are mutually exclusive and / or mutually inclusive, unless expressly specified otherwise. The terms “a,” “an,” and “the” also refer to “one or more” unless expressly specified otherwise.

[0062] Additionally, instances in this specification where one element is “coupled” to another element can include direct and indirect coupling. Direct coupling can be defined as one element coupled to and in some contact with another element. Indirect coupling can be defined as coupling between two elements not in direct contact with each other, but having one or more additional elements between the coupled elements. Further, as used herein, securing one element to another element can include direct securing and indirect securing. Additionally, as used herein, “adjacent” does not necessarily denote contact. For example, one element can be adjacent another element without being in contact with that element.

[0063] The present subject matter may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from its spirit or essential characteristics. The described embodiments are to be considered in all respects only as illustrative and not restrictive. The scope of the invention is, therefore, indicated by the appended claims rather than by the foregoing description. All changes which come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are to be embraced within their scope.

[0064] What is claimed is: CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 23 - 1. A work order management system (100), comprising: a work order module (102) configured to store and retrieve at least one work order from a plurality of work orders; a display module (104) configured to present work order details for the at least one work order; a response module (106) configured to receive anomaly verification and anomaly validation inputs for the at least one work order; a status tracking module (108) configured to update and store a work order status for the at least one work order; and a traceability module (110) configured to record a response date and a user identifier for each action associated with the at least one work order. 2. The work order management system of claim 1, wherein the work order management system is configured to operate in a manual workflow mode, wherein the manual workflow mode comprises at least one of: retrieving the work order from a physical record; modifying the work order using written documentation; and updating the work order status with manually entered inputs. 3. The work order management system of claim 1, wherein the work order management system is configured to operate in a digital workflow mode, wherein the digital workflow mode comprises at least one of: retrieving the work order from a network-connected system; modifying the work order using digital documentation via an electronic interface; and automatically updating the work order status based on electronic inputs. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 24 - 4. A method (200) for structured anomaly verification and validation, the method (200) comprising: retrieving (202) a work order associated with an anomaly from a work order management system; selecting (204) an anomaly verification response for the anomaly from a set of predefined verification responses; updating (206) a work order status based on the anomaly verification response; if the anomaly is verified, performing (208) at least one corrective action on the anomaly; selecting (210) an anomaly validation response for the anomaly from a set of predefined validation responses; updating (212) the work order status based on the anomaly validation response; and re-queuing (214) the work order in the work order management system for further corrective action and validation if the anomaly remains unresolved. 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the work order comprises at least a work order identifier, a work order status, and a unique anomaly identifier identifying the anomaly. 6. The method of claim 4, wherein the work order further comprises a first user identifier with the associated with the anomaly verification response and a second user identifier associated with the anomaly validation response. 7. The method of claim 4, wherein the anomaly verification response is presented from the set of predefined verification responses presented in a predefined CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 25 - selection menu, each anomaly verification response indicative of verification approval or rejection of an existence of the anomaly. 8. The method of claim 4, wherein the anomaly validation response is presented from the set of predefined validation responses presented in a predefined selection menu, each anomaly validation response indicative of validation confirmation or rejection of resolution of the anomaly. 9. The method of claim 4, further comprising storing a validation attempt count associated with the work order in the work order management system. 10. The method of claim 4, further comprising recording at least one of a user identifier or a response date associated with at least one of: retrieving the work order; selecting the anomaly verification response; and selecting the anomaly validation response. 11. The method of claim 4, wherein the work order management system prevents a resolved work order from being re-queued unless the work order is reactivated by an authorized user. 12. The method of claim 5, wherein the anomaly is represented as an anomaly artifact, the anomaly artifact comprising at least: the unique anomaly identifier; anomaly inspection instructions; and an anomaly location. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 26 - 13. The method of claim 4, wherein updating the work order status based on the anomaly verification response comprises: setting the work order status to completed if the anomaly verification response indicates that the anomaly does not exist, and maintaining the work order status as active if the anomaly verification response indicates that the anomaly exists. 14. The method of claim 4, wherein updating the work order status based on the anomaly validation response comprises: setting the work order status to completed if the anomaly validation response indicates that the anomaly is resolved; and maintaining the work order status as active if the anomaly validation response indicates that the anomaly is unresolved. 15. The method of claim 4, wherein the work order management system retrieves work order data corresponding to the work order from at least one of: an external database; manually uploaded files; and converted paper records. 16. A system (300) for structured anomaly verification and validation, the system (300) comprising: a work order management system (302) configured to store and manage a plurality of work orders, where each one of the plurality of work orders is associated with one of a plurality of anomalies of a structure; a retrieval module (304) configured to retrieve a work order associated with an anomaly of the plurality of anomalies from the work order management system; CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 Attorney Docket No. 25-0126-US-PSP - 27 - a verification module (306) configured to: receive an anomaly verification response selected from a set of predefined verification responses; and update a work order status of the work order based on the anomaly verification response; a corrective action module (308) configured to track at least one corrective action performed on the anomaly when the work order status remains active; a validation module (310) configured to: receive an anomaly validation response selected from a set of predefined validation responses; and update the work order status based on the anomaly validation response; and a work order tracking module (312) configured to re-queue the work order in the work order management system for subsequent corrective action and validation if the anomaly remains unresolved. 17. The system of claim 16, wherein the work order management system is configured to operate in a manual workflow mode. 18. The system of claim 16, wherein the work order management system is configured to operate in a digital workflow mode. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17

Claims

- 41 - What is claimed is:

1. A structured inspection management system comprising: an inspection organization module configured to organize a plurality of inspection orders, wherein each inspection order is associated with an anomaly and defines inspection criteria for performing an inspection associated with the anomaly; a display module configured to present, for a selected inspection order of the plurality of inspection orders, the inspection criteria associated with the selected inspection order; a response enforcement module configured to restrict user input for the selected inspection order to a predefined set of structured inspection responses associated with performance of the inspection; and a status tracking module configured to automatically determine and store an inspection status for the selected inspection order based on at least one structured inspection response selected via the response enforcement module.

2. The structured inspection management system of claim 1, further comprising a traceability module configured to record, for each structured inspection response selected via the response enforcement module, traceability data enabling identification of at least one of a source or timing of the structured inspection response.

3. The structured inspection management system of claim 1, wherein in a manual workflow mode: the inspection criteria and the predefined set of structured inspection responses are provided on a physical inspection record; CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 42 - at least one structured inspection response recorded on the physical inspection record is subsequently entered into the response enforcement module via an electronic interface; and the inspection status is determined based on the at least one structured inspection response received via the electronic interface.

4. The structured inspection management system of claim 1, wherein in a digital workflow mode: the inspection criteria and the predefined set of structured inspection responses are presented via an electronic interface; and the inspection status is determined based on the at least one structured inspection response received via the electronic interface.

5. The structured inspection management system of claim 1, wherein: each one of the plurality of inspection orders has a plurality of inspection phases; and the response enforcement module restricts the predefined set of structured inspection responses corresponding to a current inspection phase.

6. The structured inspection management system of claim 5, wherein: one of the plurality of inspection phases comprises an initial inspection phase; and the predefined set of structured inspection responses corresponding to the initial inspection phase includes responses indicative of whether a condition associated with the anomaly exists.

7. The structured inspection management system of claim 5, wherein: CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 43 - one of the plurality of inspection phases comprises a resolution inspection phase following corrective action; and the predefined set of structured inspection responses corresponding to the resolution inspection phase includes responses indicative of acceptance or rejection of a condition of the anomaly.

8. The structured inspection management system of claim 5, wherein the status tracking module determines the inspection status based on the at least one structured inspection response and the current inspection phase of the selected inspection order.

9. The structured inspection management system of claim 1, wherein the status tracking module is configured to maintain the selected inspection order in an incomplete state when the at least one structured inspection response indicates that the anomaly remains unresolved.

10. The structured inspection management system of claim 1, wherein each inspection order of the plurality of inspection orders is associated with the anomaly via anomaly identification data comprising a unique anomaly identifier.

11. The structured inspection management system of claim 1, wherein each inspection order of the plurality of inspection orders is associated with anomaly-related information comprising anomaly identification information, anomaly description information, and anomaly location information.

12. The structured inspection management system of claim 1, wherein: CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 44 - the inspection organization module is further configured to populate the plurality of inspection orders from a plurality of data sources; and the plurality of data sources includes at least one of locally stored data, manually uploaded data, or externally retrieved data.

13. The structured inspection management system of claim 1, wherein: the display module is further configured to present inspection visual data associated with the anomaly; and the inspection visual data comprises at least one of images, diagrams, or maps.

14. A method for structured anomaly inspection management, the method comprising: accessing, via a structured inspection management system, a selected inspection order associated with an anomaly from a plurality of inspection orders, wherein the selected inspection order defines inspection criteria for performing an inspection associated with the anomaly; presenting the inspection criteria for the selected inspection order; enforcing restriction of allowable input for the selected inspection order to a predefined set of structured inspection responses associated with performance of the inspection; receiving at least one structured inspection response selected from the predefined set of structured inspection responses for the selected inspection order; and automatically determining and storing an inspection status for the selected inspection order based on the at least one structured inspection response; CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 45 - wherein, when the inspection status indicates that the anomaly remains unresolved, maintaining the selected inspection order in an incomplete state for subsequent inspection or corrective action.

15. The method of claim 14, further comprising recording traceability data associated with receiving the at least one structured inspection response.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein the traceability data comprises at least one of a source or timing of the at least one structured inspection response received for the selected inspection order.

17. The method of claim 14, wherein: the selected inspection order has a plurality of inspection phases; and enforcing restriction of allowable input comprises enforcing selection from a predefined set of structured inspection responses corresponding to a current inspection phase.

18. The method of claim 14, further comprising tracking a number of inspection attempts associated with the selected inspection order, each inspection attempt corresponding to receipt of at least one structured inspection response for the selected inspection order.

19. The method of claim 14, wherein enforcing restriction of allowable input comprises preventing entry of freeform inspection responses. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17 - 46 - 20. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform a method for structured anomaly inspection management, the method comprising: accessing a selected inspection order associated with an anomaly from a plurality of inspection orders, wherein the selected inspection order defines inspection criteria for performing an inspection associated with the anomaly; presenting the inspection criteria for the selected inspection order; enforcing restriction of allowable input for the selected inspection order to a predefined set of structured inspection responses associated with performance of the inspection; receiving at least one structured inspection response selected from the predefined set of structured inspection responses for the selected inspection order; and automatically determining and storing an inspection status for the selected inspection order based on the at least one structured inspection response; wherein, when the inspection status indicates that the anomaly remains unresolved, maintain the selected inspection order in an incomplete state for subsequent inspection or corrective action. CA 3302020 Date reçue / Received date 2026-02-17