A large cruise ship post-line operation finished quality data processing method

Abstract

The application discloses a large-scale cruise ship post-line operation completion quality data processing method, which comprises the following steps: obtaining post-line operation completion quality data, and configuring triple positioning marks, hidden closing points, delivery locking states, repairable windows, re-inspection trigger marks and original data check values to generate a completion quality record set; establishing an association table between cabin delivery surfaces, cabin-penetrating interfaces, deck-penetrating interfaces, watertight boundaries, fireproof boundaries, hidden closing points, operation objects and quality elements; performing time sequence, interface ownership, pre-closing and post-closing state, re-inspection trigger condition and quality state consistency check according to closed constraint rules to generate quality state data; further calculating completion quality maturity and determining cross-cabin and cross-system rework influence paths to generate a structured completion quality data package. The method improves the traceability, closed control reliability and rework influence identification capability of the large-scale cruise ship post-line operation completion quality data.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of data processing technology, and in particular to a method for processing data on the completion quality of post-ship operations of large cruise ships. Background Technology

[0002] The construction of large cruise ships typically includes stages such as section construction, final assembly, outfitting and installation, system commissioning, area delivery, and final acceptance. In the later stages, tasks such as cabin finishing, treatment of inter-cabin and inter-deck interfaces, inspection of piping and cables, confirmation of watertight and fireproof boundaries, closure of concealed works, defect rectification, and re-inspection are carried out concurrently. Current quality management methods typically record and archive relevant completion quality data through construction records, inspection records, commissioning records, defect lists, acceptance forms, and project management systems, and allow for querying and statistical analysis by region, specialty, system, or task.

[0003] However, post-ship operations involve numerous cabins, complex outfitting systems, dense interface objects, many concealed closure points, and strong dependencies between upstream and downstream operations. Existing quality data is usually scattered across different systems or forms, lacking a unified spatial, system, operational, and interface correlation. When multiple sources of quality records exist for the same cabin delivery surface, trans-cabin interface, trans-deck interface, watertight boundary, fireproof boundary, or concealed closure point, existing methods struggle to promptly determine the chronological order of records, interface attribution, consistency of pre- and post-closure states, and re-inspection status. They also fail to accurately identify the impact of incorrect closures, incomplete closures, or failed re-inspections on subsequent cabin delivery, system integration, and rework scope, thus reducing the traceability reliability and management effectiveness of post-ship operation completion quality data.

[0004] Therefore, it is necessary to propose a technical solution for processing the completion quality data of post-ship operations on large cruise ships. Summary of the Invention

[0005] This application provides a method for processing the completion quality data of post-ship operations on large cruise ships, so as to improve the reliability of closed-loop management of post-ship operations.

[0006] This application provides a method for processing completion quality data of post-ship operations on large cruise ships. The method includes: acquiring completion quality data of post-ship operations on large cruise ships, configuring a triple positioning identifier for each completion quality data point, consisting of cabin location, outfitting system, work package, and interface object; simultaneously configuring concealed closure points, delivery lock status, repairable windows, re-inspection trigger markers, and original data verification values; generating a set of completion quality records; establishing a correlation table between cabin delivery surfaces, cabin penetration interfaces, deck penetration interfaces, watertight boundaries, fireproof boundaries, concealed closure points, work objects, and quality elements based on the completion quality record set; marking upstream operations, downstream closure operations, and system connectivity checks corresponding to each quality element in the correlation table; and, based on the correlation table and preset post-ship operation closure constraint rules, processing data pointing to the same triple positioning identifier, the same concealed closure point, or the same... The system performs time sequence, interface attribution, pre- and post-closure status verification, re-inspection trigger conditions, and quality status consistency verification on the completion quality records of the interconnected inspection relationships. This generates quality status data indicating whether the system is acknowledgable, awaiting re-inspection, prohibited from closure, or requires unlocking and rework. Based on the quality status data and the relationship table, the system calculates the completion quality maturity of the compartments, outfitting systems, and work packages according to the closure relationship of the compartment delivery surface, the connection relationship of the trans-compartment interface, the watertight boundary constraint relationship, the fire protection boundary constraint relationship, and the order of operations. It also determines the cross-compartment and cross-system rework impact paths caused by unclosed quality elements, incorrect closure, or failed re-inspection. Based on the completion quality maturity and rework impact paths, a structured completion quality data package is generated. The structured completion quality data package includes maturity results, prohibited closure objects, objects awaiting re-inspection, rework impact paths, repairable windows, and original data traceability identifiers.

[0007] The beneficial effects of the technical solution provided in this application include: (1) Accurately associate the completed quality data with the compartment location, outfitting system, work package and interface object through triple positioning identification, thereby improving the positioning accuracy and traceability reliability of subsequent work quality data. (2) Improve the ability to associate and process quality data from multiple disciplines and regions by establishing an association table that includes the compartment delivery surface, the interface between compartments, the watertight boundary, the fireproof boundary and the concealed closure point. (3) Through the consistency verification of the closure constraint rules, the quality status that needs to be re-inspected, prohibited from closure or needs to be unlocked for rework can be identified, thereby reducing the risk of incorrect closure. (4) Improve the efficiency of subsequent work quality control and delivery decision-making by calculating the completion quality maturity and generating cross-compartment and cross-system rework impact paths. Attached Figure Description

[0008] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of a method for processing the completion quality data of post-ship operations of a large cruise ship, provided in the first embodiment of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0009] Many specific details are set forth in the following description to provide a full understanding of this application. However, this application can be implemented in many other ways different from those described herein, and those skilled in the art can make similar extensions without departing from the spirit of this application; therefore, this application is not limited to the specific embodiments disclosed below.

[0010] The first embodiment of this application provides a method for processing the completion quality data of post-ship operations on large cruise ships. Please refer to... Figure 1 This figure is a schematic diagram of the first embodiment of this application. The following is in conjunction with... Figure 1 The first embodiment of this application provides a detailed description of a method for processing the completion quality data of post-ship operations on large cruise ships.

[0011] Step S101: Obtain the completion quality data of the post-operation of large cruise ships, and configure a triple positioning identifier formed by cabin location, outfitting system, work package and interface object for each completion quality data. At the same time, configure the concealed closing point, delivery lock status, repairable window, re-inspection trigger mark and original data verification value to generate a set of completion quality records.

[0012] In this embodiment, post-construction operations for large cruise ships refer to the finishing, inspection, commissioning, and rectification work carried out before and after the completion of the main body construction, major outfitting installation, or main structural construction of a large cruise ship, and before and after cabin delivery, system connection, concealed works closure, defect rectification, re-inspection and confirmation, and delivery acceptance. Post-construction operation completion quality data refers to data used to characterize whether the above-mentioned operations are completed, whether they meet quality requirements, and whether they are permitted to enter the subsequent closed or delivery state. This data may include inspection records, construction completion records, commissioning records, defect closure records, re-inspection records, photos, videos, measurements, test results, signed confirmation information, information entered via mobile terminals, and data exported from the quality management system, construction planning system, or commissioning system.

[0013] During step S101, the completion quality data of post-operation work on large cruise ships can be obtained through data interfaces, file imports, mobile terminal uploads, or manual input. After acquisition, the system parses each piece of completion quality data, extracting information that represents the work object and quality status. For example, a record about the sealing inspection of a cable penetration in a certain compartment may include the inspection time, inspector, compartment number, deck number, area number, system number, cable penetration part number, work package, inspection conclusion, attached photos, and whether re-inspection is required. For fields missing in the original data, they can be completed based on the pre-configured ship area code table, outfitting system code table, work package list, and interface object list; for fields that cannot be automatically completed, the data can be marked as a record to be confirmed, rather than being used directly as confirmable quality data.

[0014] The triple positioning identifier in this invention is not a simple single number, but a composite identifier used to uniquely identify the quality object corresponding to a single piece of completed quality data in the complex operational environment of a large cruise ship. The triple positioning identifier includes three levels: spatial positioning, system interface positioning, and operational positioning. Spatial positioning is determined by the cabin location, which refers to the spatial location of the object corresponding to the completed quality data within the cruise ship, including at least one or more of the following: hull partition, deck, cabin number, or area number. System interface positioning is determined by the outfitting system and interface objects. The outfitting system refers to the systems set up in the cruise ship to achieve ventilation, water supply and drainage, fire protection, electrical, communication, interior decoration, air conditioning, or other functions. Interface objects refer to the specific objects that connect, block, seal, or exchange between different cabins, decks, systems, or specialties, such as through-cabin pipe interfaces, through-deck cable interfaces, duct penetrations, fire pipe penetrations, watertight door boundary interfaces, fireproof sealing interfaces, etc. Operational positioning is determined by the work package. The work package refers to the set of work tasks that are assigned, planned, executed, and accepted in cruise ship construction management, which can correspond to a construction task, inspection task, defect rectification task, system commissioning task, or delivery and acceptance task. Through these three levels, even if there are multiple systems, multiple interfaces, and multiple work tasks in the same cabin, the completed quality data can be accurately mapped to specific quality objects.

[0015] In addition to configuring triple positioning identifiers for each completed quality data point, the system also configures concealed closure points, delivery lock status, reworkable windows, re-inspection trigger markers, and original data verification values. Concealed closure points refer to quality inspection locations or quality control nodes that are difficult to directly observe, inspect, or rework after subsequent decorative panel installation, insulation layer covering, bulkhead sealing, ceiling closure, flooring installation, equipment enclosure installation, or other enclosed operations. For example, the inspection location before the fireproofing of through-cabin cables is completed and covered by decorative panels can be considered a concealed closure point. Delivery lock status refers to whether the object corresponding to the completed quality data has entered a state of restricted modification, prohibited construction, or only permitted rework after approval. This can include states such as unlocked, pending lock, locked, and unlocked rework. Reworkable windows refer to the time interval or work phase range within which the corresponding object can still be rectified or re-inspected without dismantling completed enclosed operations or affecting subsequent delivery plans. For example, if a through-deck interface can be directly repaired before the ceiling is sealed, its repairability window can be recorded as "before ceiling sealing" or as the specific start and end times in the planning system. The re-inspection trigger flag indicates whether the completed quality data needs to be re-inspected due to defect rectification, status conflict, reconstruction, interface change, or pre-sealing confirmation. Its values ​​can be no re-inspection required, re-inspection required, re-inspection in progress, or re-inspection completed. The original data checksum is verification information generated based on the original completed quality data content to identify whether the data has been tampered with or changed. It can be generated using hash values, cyclic redundancy checksums, or database version numbers. For example, a hash value is generated by uniformly concatenating the text fields, attachment number, collection time, and inspection conclusion of an inspection record; when the photo, conclusion, or collection time changes, the regenerated checksum will be different, and the system can identify that the record has changed.

[0016] After completing the above configuration, each piece of completion quality data is converted into a completion quality record. A completion quality record includes at least the original data source, triple location identifier, hidden closure point identifier, delivery lock status, reworkable window, re-inspection trigger flag, original data verification value, and quality conclusion. Multiple completion quality records are stored in a database table, data file, or data cache according to a unified data structure, forming a completion quality record set. This completion quality record set is not simply a summary of raw data, but rather the data foundation for subsequent establishment of relational tables, closure constraint verification, calculation of completion quality maturity, and generation of rework impact paths.

[0017] Furthermore, the process involves acquiring post-shipment work completion quality data and configuring a triple positioning identifier for each data point, consisting of cabin location, outfitting system, work package, and interface object. Simultaneously, it configures concealed closing points, delivery lock status, repairable windows, re-inspection trigger markers, and original data verification values ​​to generate a set of completion quality records, including: The completion quality data of subsequent operations are obtained from the inspection terminal, debugging system, defect system, construction plan system and closed operation confirmation record, and a source data table is generated according to the original record number, source system, collection time, attachment index and actual execution time of the closed operation. Based on the compartment number, outfitting system number, work package number, and interface object number in the source data table, a triple positioning identifier is generated, and finished quality data with the same triple positioning identifier but different source systems are grouped into the same quality object data group. Based on the query of the quality object data group, the corresponding downstream closure operation will be marked as a hidden closure point if the interface object is blocked by the bulkhead sealing plate, ceiling closure, thermal insulation coverage, ground paving or equipment enclosure, and the closure reachability status will be generated according to the actual execution time of the closure operation. Based on the concealed closure point, closure reachability status, downstream closure operation plan time, downstream closure operation actual execution time, and delivery lock status, a reworkable window is generated, wherein the cutoff time of the reworkable window is the earliest occurrence of the downstream closure operation actual execution time, the downstream closure operation plan start time, or the delivery lock time. Based on the quality object data group, reworkable window, and delivery lock status, identify defect closure, interface change, rework record, and changes in original data after locking, configure re-inspection trigger flags, and generate original data verification values ​​for original data fields, attachment indexes, and actual execution time of closed operations to form a set of completed quality records.

[0018] In this implementation, the system first acquires the completion quality data of the downstream operations on large cruise ships from the inspection terminal, commissioning system, defect system, construction planning system, and closure operation confirmation records. The inspection terminal can be a mobile or fixed terminal used by quality personnel to upload inspection conclusions, photos, signature information, and inspection time. The commissioning system can provide data such as system commissioning results, through-check results, pressure test results, and electrical test results. The defect system can provide the status of defect discovery, rectification, closure, and re-inspection. The construction planning system can provide the work package plan, downstream closure operation plan time, and delivery lock status. The closure operation confirmation records can be records confirming on-site that bulkhead sealing, ceiling sealing, insulation covering, floor paving, or equipment enclosure have been actually performed. After acquiring the above data, the system generates a source data table according to the original record number, source system, acquisition time, attachment index, and actual closure operation execution time. The original record number is used to uniquely locate the original record in the data source; the source system is used to distinguish whether the data comes from the inspection, commissioning, defect, planning, or closure confirmation system; the attachment index is used to locate photos, videos, test reports, or signed documents; and the actual closure operation execution time indicates the time when the downstream closure operation was actually completed or confirmed on-site.

[0019] The system then generates a triple positioning identifier based on the cabin number, outfitting system number, work package number, and interface object number from the source data table. This triple positioning identifier is used to determine the specific quality object corresponding to the completed quality data in the complex operational environment of a large cruise ship. It can be composed of spatial positioning, system interface positioning, and operational positioning. Spatial positioning can be determined by hull partitions, deck numbers, and cabin numbers; system interface positioning can be determined by outfitting system numbers and interface object numbers; and operational positioning can be determined by work package numbers. For example, if a record corresponds to "guesthouse in Area A of Deck 8, air conditioning and ventilation system, duct penetration interface, and sealing inspection work package," the system can combine the cabin number, system number, interface object number, and work package number to form the triple positioning identifier for that record. For data from different source systems but with the same triple positioning identifier—for example, the same penetration interface has an inspection record in the inspection terminal, a rectification and closure record in the defect system, and a closure plan record in the construction plan system—the system will group these data into the same quality object data group. A quality object data set refers to a collection of data from multiple sources corresponding to the same compartment, the same outfitting system, the same work package, and the same interface object. It is used to avoid mistaking different source records of the same quality object as unrelated data during subsequent verification.

[0020] After forming a quality object data group, the system queries the corresponding downstream closure operation based on the quality object data group. A downstream closure operation refers to an operation performed after the quality object that may obstruct, cover, or restrict the rework of the quality object, such as bulkhead sealing, ceiling sealing, insulation covering, floor paving, or equipment enclosure. If an interface object is obstructed by any of the above closure operations, making it impossible to directly observe, inspect, or rework after closure, the system marks the interface object as a hidden closure point. A hidden closure point is not simply a spatial location, but rather a quality control location where the accessibility for inspection and rework changes due to subsequent closure operations. The system also generates a closure reachability status based on the actual execution time of the closure operation. The closure reachability status indicates whether the interface object can still be directly inspected or reworked at the current time, and can include states such as unclosed reachable, closed and requiring removal reachable, and locked and requiring unlocking and rework. For example, if the decorative panel of a cable interface through a cabin has not yet been installed, the closed accessibility status is unclosed and accessible; if the decorative panel has been installed but the cabin has not yet been delivered and locked, the closed accessibility status is closed and needs to be removed and accessed; if the decorative panel has been installed and the cabin has been delivered and locked, the closed accessibility status is locked and needs to be unlocked and reworked.

[0021] The system further generates a reworkable window based on the concealed closure point, closure reachability, downstream closure operation plan time, downstream closure operation actual execution time, and delivery lock status. The reworkable window refers to the time range within which rectification, inspection, or re-inspection of the corresponding quality object is permitted without triggering unlocking rework or dismantling completed closure operations. Its cutoff point is the earliest actual execution time of the downstream closure operation, the planned start time of the downstream closure operation, or the delivery lock time. The purpose of this method is to simultaneously consider planned risks and actual site conditions, avoiding ignoring situations where closure is prematurely implemented based solely on the planned time. For example, if the planned start time for closure of a suspended ceiling at a through-deck pipe interface is June 10th, and the site closure confirmation record shows that the ceiling was actually completed on June 8th, with a delivery lock time of June 12th, then the cutoff point for the reworkable window is June 8th. If the site has not yet been closed, but the plan shows closure starting on June 10th, and the delivery lock time is June 12th, then the cutoff point is June 10th. If the delivery lock time is earlier than the planned closure time, then the cutoff point is the delivery lock time. Through this process, the system can automatically converge the repairable window as the site is closed and the delivery is locked.

[0022] Subsequently, the system identifies defect closures, interface changes, rework records, and changes in original data after locking based on the quality object data group, reworkable window, and delivery lock status, and configures re-inspection trigger flags. The re-inspection trigger flag indicates whether the quality object needs to be re-confirmed for quality. If a quality object has a defect closure record, it means the rectification results need to be reconfirmed after the defect was rectified; if an interface change record exists, it means the location, number, connection relationship, or boundary attributes of the interface object have changed, requiring reconfirmation; if a rework record exists, it means the original quality status has been changed by subsequent construction, requiring re-inspection; if the original data changes after delivery lock, it means the quality evidence used for locking may have changed, also requiring a re-inspection. The system can configure the re-inspection trigger flag to "no re-inspection required," "re-inspection required," "re-inspection in progress," or "re-inspection completed." For example, a fireproof sealing interface passed inspection on June 3rd, the bulkhead was sealed on June 4th, and delivery lock was completed on June 5th. However, if a rework record for this interface is added to the defect system on June 6th, the system will configure this interface as requiring re-inspection, instead of continuing to use the passing conclusion from June 3rd.

[0023] The system also generates original data verification values ​​for the original data fields, attachment indexes, and actual execution time of the closed-loop operation. These verification values ​​are used to confirm whether the original data upon which the completion quality record is based has changed. This can be achieved through hash algorithms, cyclic redundancy checks, or database version summaries. During generation, the system can concatenate fields such as the original record number, source system, collection time, quality conclusion, attachment index, and actual execution time of the closed-loop operation in a preset order, and generate a verification value for the concatenated result. If subsequent photo attachments are replaced, quality conclusions are modified, the actual execution time of the closed-loop operation is updated, or original record fields change, the regenerated verification value will be different. The system can then identify that the original data has changed and, in conjunction with the delivery lock status, determine whether to trigger a re-verification.

[0024] After the above processing, the system writes the source data table, triple location identifier, quality object data group, hidden closure point, closure reachability status, reworkable window, re-inspection trigger flag, and original data verification value into a unified data structure, forming a set of completed quality records. Each record in this set of completed quality records not only contains the original completed quality data itself, but also contains location, closure, re-inspection, and traceability information used for subsequent table association, closure constraint verification, maturity calculation, and determination of rework impact paths.

[0025] Step S102: Based on the set of completed quality records, establish a relationship table between the compartment delivery surface, the interface between the compartment and the interface between the deck and the watertight boundary, the fireproof boundary, the concealed closure point, the work object and the quality element, and mark the upstream operation, downstream closure operation and system connection inspection relationship corresponding to each quality element in the relationship table.

[0026] After obtaining the set of completion quality records, the system establishes an association table reflecting the correspondence and dependencies between quality objects in the subsequent operations of large cruise ships, based on fields configured in each completion quality record, such as cabin location, outfitting system, work package, interface object, concealed closure point, delivery lock status, reworkable window, and quality conclusion. This association table can be stored in a relational database, graph database, or data file capable of expressing multi-object relationships. The association table in this invention is not limited to a single physical table; it can also consist of multiple mutually referencing data tables, as long as it can record the correspondence between objects and provide data for subsequent steps to query, verify, and calculate.

[0027] In this invention, the cabin delivery surface refers to the complete quality delivery scope that needs to be verified during delivery inspection of a cabin or area. It may include bulkheads, ceilings, floors, doors and windows, interior components, equipment mounting surfaces, and the deliverable status of related interior and exterior interfaces within the cabin. A cabin delivery surface is not equivalent to a single cabin number, but rather indicates the quality verification boundary involved when the cabin meets delivery conditions. For example, the cabin delivery surface of a guest cabin may include the completion status of the guest cabin's interior decoration, toilet water supply and drainage interfaces, air conditioning vents, electrical sockets, fire sprinklers, communication panels, and the status of wall or panel penetrations. A cabin penetration interface refers to an interface object that penetrates or connects different cabins, areas, or functional spaces, such as the penetration points of pipes, cables, ducts, cable trays, or fire protection pipelines through bulkheads. A deck penetration interface refers to an interface object that penetrates between upper and lower decks, such as vertical cable penetrations, risers, ventilation shafts, drainage pipes, or other cross-deck connections. Watertight boundaries refer to the boundary areas or boundary components formed to ensure the watertight separation requirements of cruise ships, including watertight bulkheads, watertight doors, watertight penetrations and their sealing parts. Fireproof boundaries refer to the boundary areas or boundary components formed to meet fireproof separation requirements, including fireproof bulkheads, fireproof doors, fireproof seals, fireproof seals of penetrations and related fire resistance integrity inspection areas.

[0028] The work object refers to the construction, installation, commissioning, inspection, or rectification object directly corresponding to the completion quality record, such as a fireproof sealing, a pipe penetration interface, a ceiling panel of a compartment, an equipment mounting base, a cable penetration, or a system commissioning task. Quality elements refer to the specific inspection items or quality control items used to determine whether the work object meets the completion quality requirements, such as installation completion, dimensional conformity, sealing qualification, fireproof sealing qualification, watertightness test passing, insulation test passing, defect closure, photographic record retention, and re-inspection qualification. One work object can correspond to multiple quality elements, and one quality element can also be associated with multiple completion quality records.

[0029] When establishing the association table, you can first determine the compartment delivery surface, outfitting system, work package, and interface object to which the record belongs based on the triple positioning identifier in the completion quality record. Then, based on the type and location of the interface object, further associate it with the compartment interface, deck interface, watertight boundary, fireproof boundary, or concealed closure point. Finally, based on the correspondence between the work package and quality elements, determine which work object the quality element belongs to and its sequential relationship with other work. Each association in the association table can at least include the association number, compartment delivery surface identifier, interface object identifier, boundary type, concealed closure point identifier, work object identifier, quality element identifier, upstream work identifier, downstream closure work identifier, system penetration inspection identifier, and the corresponding completion quality record identifier.

[0030] Upstream operations refer to tasks that should have been completed or should have met quality requirements before the current quality element is confirmed. For example, before confirming the fireproofing of through-cabin cables, cable laying, penetration installation, and interface location confirmation can be considered upstream operations. Downstream closure operations refer to subsequent operations that may obstruct, cover, or restrict the rework of the current quality element after its confirmation, such as decorative panel installation, bulkhead sealing, ceiling closure, insulation layer covering, floor paving, or equipment enclosure installation. System continuity inspection relationships refer to the inspection dependencies formed between different interfaces or work objects in terms of functional continuity, sealing continuity, electrical continuity, piping connectivity, or commissioning integrity when the same outfitting system is continuously arranged along a compartment, deck, or interface. For example, when a fire-fighting pipeline passes through multiple compartments and decks, each through-cabin interface, through-deck interface, and fireproofing not only needs to be inspected individually but also needs to be related to the pressure test, continuity inspection, and system commissioning results of the fire-fighting pipeline.

[0031] For example, for a completion quality record stating "Fireproof sealing inspection of air conditioning duct penetration interface in cabin of Area A, Deck 8, is qualified," the system can associate it with the corresponding cabin's delivery surface, air conditioning and ventilation system, relevant work package, the duct penetration interface, the fire boundary, and the corresponding concealed closure point. Simultaneously, the system will mark its upstream work as duct installation and interface positioning inspection, its downstream closure work as bulkhead trim panel installation, and its system connectivity inspection relationship as airflow adjustment or connectivity inspection of the corresponding branch of the air conditioning and ventilation system. In this way, subsequent steps, when determining whether the cabin can be closed or delivered, can directly read this connectivity table to confirm whether all relevant quality elements have been completed, whether there are re-inspection requirements, and whether it will affect the system connectivity inspection.

[0032] In the above manner, step S102 converts the scattered completion quality records into queryable, verifiable, and traceable associated data, so that a clear correspondence is formed between the compartment delivery surface, interface, boundary, concealed closure point, work object and quality element.

[0033] Furthermore, based on the set of completed quality records, a relationship table is established between the compartment delivery surface, compartment interface, deck interface, watertight boundary, fireproof boundary, concealed closure point, work object, and quality elements. The relationship table is used to mark the upstream operations, downstream closure operations, and system connectivity inspection relationships corresponding to each quality element, including: Based on the triple positioning identifier in the completed quality record set, extract the compartment delivery surface number, interface object number, work object number and quality element number, and generate an object index table; Based on the object index table, interface objects belonging to the same outfitting system and spanning two or more compartments or decks are grouped into interface connection bundles, and an interface connection bundle number is generated. Based on the interface connection bundle number, each interface object is matched with the watertight boundary, fireproof boundary, concealed closure point and downstream closure operation to generate an interface boundary constraint table containing boundary type, connection direction and reachable state after closure. Based on the interface boundary constraint table and the work package plan sequence, determine the upstream work, downstream closed work and system connectivity check relationship corresponding to each quality element, and generate a quality dependency table; Based on the interface object number, interface connection bundle number, and quality element number, the object index table, interface boundary constraint table, and quality dependency table are merged to generate an association table. Interface objects that are simultaneously associated with concealed closure points, interface connection bundles, and watertight or fireproof boundaries are marked as critical closed interfaces.

[0034] In this implementation, the system establishes a relational table based on the set of completed quality records to convert scattered quality records into data that reflects the dependencies between subsequent work objects on a large cruise ship. Each record in the completed quality record set already contains a triple positioning identifier. Therefore, the system can first read the cabin location, outfitting system, work package, and interface object from the triple positioning identifier, and then combine the quality element information in the record to extract the cabin delivery surface number, interface object number, work object number, and quality element number to generate an object index table. The object index table is used to determine which cabin delivery surface, interface object, work object, and quality element corresponds to each completed quality record. The cabin delivery surface number can be generated based on the hull partition, deck, and cabin number; the interface object number can correspond to a specific through-cabin pipe interface, through-deck cable interface, air duct penetration, fire pipe penetration, or other through-connection location; the work object number can correspond to the construction, installation, commissioning, inspection, or rectification object; and the quality element number can correspond to inspection items such as fireproof sealing qualification, watertight sealing qualification, completion of penetration inspection, and passing of re-inspection.

[0035] The system then identifies interface bundles based on the object index table. An interface bundle refers to a group of interface objects belonging to the same outfitting system and passing through two or more compartments or decks along the arrangement path of that outfitting system. Its function is to group interface quality records that were originally scattered across different compartments or decks into related objects within the same system's interconnected link. For example, if a fire duct extends from the equipment room on the sixth deck to the seventh and eighth decks, passing through multiple bulkheads and decks, then the compartment and deck crossing interfaces along this fire duct can be grouped into the same interface bundle. Similarly, if a ventilation branch crosses multiple adjacent guest rooms, its duct compartment crossing interfaces can also form an interface bundle. The system can group interfaces based on the following conditions: identical outfitting system numbers, continuous spatial location of interface objects, system connection relationships between interface objects, and at least two compartments or decks being traversed. A unique interface bundle number is generated for each group of interface objects after grouping. The interface bundle number can consist of a system number, a region number, and a sequence number, or it can be automatically numbered using a database.

[0036] After generating the interface connection bundle number, the system matches each interface object with watertight boundaries, fireproof boundaries, concealed closure points, and downstream closure operations based on this number, generating an interface boundary constraint table. The interface boundary constraint table records which boundaries and closure conditions restrict interface objects during downstream operations on large cruise ships. Boundary type indicates whether the interface object belongs to a watertight boundary, a fireproof boundary, both, or neither. Connection direction indicates the spatial connection relationship of the interface object, such as transverse passage through a cabin, longitudinal passage through a deck, entry from a public area to a cabin, entry from an equipment room to a guest room, or extension from a lower deck to an upper deck. Post-closure accessibility indicates whether the interface object can still be directly inspected or repaired after downstream closure operations are completed. Post-closure accessibility can be set to a definite state such as directly accessible, accessible after removing decorative elements, accessible after removing the structure or enclosure, or not directly accessible. Downstream closure operations can include bulkhead sealing, ceiling closure, decorative panel installation, insulation layer covering, floor paving, or equipment enclosure installation. Using the interface boundary constraint table, the system can determine whether an interface object becomes a high-risk quality object due to its encapsulation.

[0037] For example, for a cable interface penetrating a cabin, if it passes through a fireproof bulkhead and will subsequently be covered by decorative panels, the system will mark its boundary type as fireproof boundary, its penetration direction as transverse penetration, its downstream enclosure operation as decorative panel installation, and its reachable state after enclosure as requiring the removal of decorative panels. Similarly, for a drain pipe interface penetrating a deck, if it passes through a watertight deck and is difficult to inspect after ceiling enclosure, the system will mark its boundary type as watertight boundary, its penetration direction as longitudinal penetration, its downstream enclosure operation as ceiling enclosure, and its reachable state after enclosure as requiring the removal of ceiling panels.

[0038] The system further determines the upstream operations, downstream closure operations, and system connectivity inspection relationships corresponding to each quality element based on the interface boundary constraint table and the work package plan sequence, generating a quality dependency table. The work package plan sequence refers to the sequential execution relationship of work packages recorded in the construction planning system or project plan. For example, interface installation should precede sealing inspection, sealing inspection should precede plate sealing operations, and plate sealing operations should precede compartment delivery. Upstream operations are those that should be completed before the current quality element is confirmed, while downstream closure operations are those that may obstruct or restrict rework after the current quality element is confirmed. The system connectivity inspection relationship refers to whether the quality element affects the continuity, connectivity, sealing, or commissioning integrity of the same outfitting system across multiple compartments or decks. For interface objects in an interface connectivity bundle, the system can associate related interfaces under the same connectivity bundle number with the same system connectivity inspection relationship, thereby avoiding isolated judgments on individual interfaces.

[0039] For example, the quality element of "fireproof sealing qualified" for a ductwork interface penetrating a cabin can include upstream operations such as duct installation completion and penetration component positioning confirmation, downstream sealing operations such as bulkhead trim panel installation, and system continuity checks such as air conditioning ventilation branch airflow adjustment. Similarly, the quality element of "watertight sealing qualified" for a water supply and drainage pipe interface penetrating a deck can include upstream operations such as pipe installation completion and interface sealing construction completion, downstream sealing operations such as ceiling sealing, and system continuity checks such as water supply and drainage system water flow or pressure checks.

[0040] Finally, the system merges the object index table, interface boundary constraint table, and quality dependency table according to the interface object number, interface connection bundle number, and quality element number to generate an association table. Each data entry in this association table can include at least the compartment delivery surface number, interface object number, interface connection bundle number, work object number, quality element number, boundary type, connection direction, reachable status after closure, concealed closure point identifier, upstream work, downstream closure work, and system connection inspection relationship. During the merging process, the system further identifies critical closure interfaces. A critical closure interface refers to an interface object that is simultaneously associated with a concealed closure point, an interface connection bundle, and a watertight or fireproof boundary. In other words, this interface object is not only difficult to inspect or repair after closure, but also belongs to a system connection link across compartments or decks, and is subject to quality constraints from watertight or fireproof boundaries. The system sets a critical closure interface mark for interface objects that meet the above conditions in the association table.

[0041] In this way, the association table not only records the attribution relationship of quality data, but also records the interface connection relationship, boundary constraint relationship and closed accessibility relationship unique to the post-ship operation of large cruise ships.

[0042] Step S103: Based on the association table and the preset subsequent operation closure constraint rules, perform time sequence, interface attribution, closure status before and after closure, re-inspection trigger conditions and quality status consistency verification on the completion quality records pointing to the same triple positioning mark, the same hidden closure point or the same system through inspection relationship, and generate quality status data indicating that it can be confirmed, awaits re-inspection, is prohibited from closure or needs to be unlocked and reworked.

[0043] After establishing the relationship table, the system verifies the completed quality records based on the relationship table and pre-configured subsequent operation closure constraint rules. The subsequent operation closure constraint rules are a set of judgment conditions used to determine whether quality objects in subsequent operations on large cruise ships are allowed to be closed, whether re-inspection is required, whether there are erroneous closures, and whether unlocking and rework are necessary. These rules can be pre-configured from cruise ship construction quality specifications, construction process requirements, delivery and acceptance requirements, and project management requirements, and can be stored as rule tables, configuration files, or database fields. For example, the rules could stipulate that: if the fireproof sealing inspection of the transom interface fails, the bulkhead trim panel closure is not allowed; if the watertight boundary sealing inspection fails, the corresponding cabin delivery surface cannot be marked as deliverable; if a defect rectification record occurs after the concealed closure point is closed, a re-inspection must be triggered; if the system connectivity inspection is not completed, the completion status of the relevant outfitting system cannot be marked as confirmed.

[0044] When performing this step, the system first searches for the completion quality records that need to be jointly verified based on the association table. The objects of joint verification include records pointing to the same triple positioning identifier, records pointing to the same concealed closure point, and records pointing to the same system connectivity check relationship. Pointing to the same triple positioning identifier means that although multiple records originate from different systems or different personnel, the quality objects defined by their compartment location, outfitting system, work package, and interface object are the same. Pointing to the same concealed closure point means that multiple records all involve the same sealed location that is difficult to directly inspect or rework. Pointing to the same system connectivity check relationship means that multiple records correspond to the continuity, connectivity, or commissioning integrity checks of the same outfitting system at different compartments, decks, or interfaces.

[0045] The system then performs a time sequence check. This check determines whether the collection time, work completion time, defect closure time, re-inspection time, and sealing operation time of each completed quality record conform to a preset sequential relationship. For example, for a cable interface penetrating a deck, there should be a cable laying completion record first, followed by a fireproof sealing inspection pass record, and only then can there be a ceiling sealing record. If the system finds that the ceiling sealing record is earlier than the fireproof sealing inspection pass record, it determines that the sealing sequence is abnormal. In cases of subsequent defect rectification, if the rectification time is later than the original re-inspection pass time, the original re-inspection result cannot continue to be used as the final verifiable basis, and a new re-inspection should be triggered.

[0046] Interface attribution verification refers to determining whether the interface object in the completed quality record matches the cabin delivery surface, through-cabin interface, through-deck interface, watertight boundary, or fireproof boundary registered in the association table. For example, if a record states that the fireproof sealing of a cabin bulkhead through-cabin interface is qualified, but its interface number belongs to an adjacent equipment room in the association table, or its system is inconsistent with the system registered for the corresponding interface, then this record cannot be directly used to confirm the cabin's sealing status and should be marked as interface attribution abnormal or pending confirmation. This process avoids erroneous association of quality data caused by manual entry errors, inconsistent system coding, or cross-disciplinary construction.

[0047] Pre- and post-closure status verification refers to determining whether quality confirmation occurred at an acceptable stage by combining the delivery lock status, downstream closure operations, and the status of concealed closure points. If a concealed closure point has not yet completed the necessary quality checks, but downstream closure operation records such as decorative panel installation, ceiling closure, or insulation covering have appeared in the relationship table, the system will classify the corresponding quality object as prohibited from closure or incorrectly closed. If the concealed closure point has been closed, but subsequently experiences defective opening, interface changes, rework, or changes in the original data verification value, the system will determine that it cannot maintain its original confirmed status and generate a status requiring unlocking and rework or pending re-inspection.

[0048] Re-inspection trigger condition verification refers to determining whether the completed quality record meets the conditions requiring re-inspection. Re-inspection trigger conditions can include defect rectification completion, a change in quality conclusion from unqualified to qualified, a change in the interface object, rework after closure, contradictory records for the same object, changes in original data verification values, and re-debugging after a failed system connectivity check. For example, if a fire-fighting pipeline's penetration interface fails the first inspection and a rectification completion record subsequently appears, the system will not directly classify it as acceptable but will mark it as pending re-inspection until a rectified and qualified re-inspection record appears.

[0049] Quality status consistency verification refers to comparing the consistency of quality conclusions among multiple records of the same or related quality objects, and resolving conflicts according to subsequent operation closure constraint rules. For example, if a mobile terminal uploads a "qualified" record for the same compartment interface, and the quality defect system still shows unclosed defects, the system will prioritize classifying the object as requiring re-inspection or prohibiting closure, rather than directly adopting a qualified conclusion. Similarly, if one of the multiple interfaces related to the same watertight boundary fails the seal inspection, even if the other interfaces show qualified results, the system can still classify the delivery surface of the compartment corresponding to that watertight boundary as prohibiting closure according to the rules.

[0050] After the above verification, the system generates quality status data for the corresponding quality object. Quality status data refers to data that represents the current processable state of the quality object, and it includes at least the quality object identifier, the corresponding completed quality record identifier, the verification result, the status category, the triggering reason, and traceability information. Status categories can include confirmable, pending re-inspection, prohibited from closure, and require unlocking and rework. Confirmable indicates that the relevant quality records meet the requirements of time sequence, interface affiliation, state before and after closure, re-inspection triggering conditions, and consistency of quality status; pending re-inspection indicates that there are already rectification, change, or conflict records, and confirmation is only possible after re-inspection; prohibited from closure indicates that downstream closure operations are not allowed before the necessary quality elements are confirmed; requires unlocking and rework indicates that the object is already in a delivery locked or closed state, but due to incorrect closure, failed re-inspection, or subsequent defects, it needs to be unlocked and reworked.

[0051] Furthermore, based on the association table and preset subsequent operation closure constraint rules, the completed quality records pointing to the same triple positioning identifier, the same hidden closure point, or the same system connection inspection relationship are checked for consistency in time sequence, interface affiliation, state before and after closure, re-inspection trigger conditions, and quality status. This generates quality status data indicating whether the work is verifiable, awaiting re-inspection, prohibited from closure, or requires unlocking and rework, including: Based on the association table, complete quality records with the same triple positioning mark, the same concealed closure point, or the same system connection inspection relationship are bound to their corresponding compartment delivery surface, compartment interface, deck interface, watertight boundary, fireproof boundary, upstream operation and downstream closure operation to generate a chain of objects to be verified. Select interface objects from the chain of objects to be verified that meet the following conditions as key closed interfaces: the interface object belongs to the compartment interface or the deck interface, the interface object is associated with the concealed closure point, and the interface object is associated with the watertight boundary, the fireproof boundary or the system connection inspection relationship that spans two or more compartments, and generate a list of key closed interfaces based on the selection results. For each critical closed interface in the list of critical closed interfaces, a closed status timeline is generated according to the time sequence of upstream operation completion, quality element confirmation, re-inspection confirmation, downstream closed operation execution, delivery lock-in, and changes in original data verification values. The effectiveness of closing key interfaces is determined based on the timeline of the closing status: when the downstream closing operation is executed earlier than the quality element confirmation time or the re-inspection confirmation time, a candidate status of prohibiting closure is generated; when new defect records, interface change records, rework records, or changes in original data verification values ​​occur after delivery locking, a candidate status of needing to be unlocked and reworked is generated; when a re-inspection trigger mark exists after quality element confirmation and there is no re-inspection confirmation record later than the re-inspection trigger mark, a candidate status of pending re-inspection is generated. Based on the candidate status of prohibited closure, candidate status of needing to be unlocked and reworked, and candidate status of pending re-inspection, the delivery surface of the compartment, the system connection inspection relationship, the watertight boundary or the fireproof boundary associated with the same key closed interface are linked and linked closure status data is generated. Based on the priorities of needing to unlock and rework, prohibiting closure, awaiting re-inspection, and confirmable, the linked closure status data is used to resolve status conflicts and generate quality status data.

[0052] In this implementation, after obtaining the association table and the set of completed quality records, the system binds the completed quality records that need to be jointly judged. Binding refers to organizing multiple completed quality records belonging to the same quality judgment object or having a closed dependency relationship together according to the corresponding relationship in the association table, so as to facilitate unified verification later. Specifically, the system can read the triple positioning identifier, concealed closure point identifier, and system connectivity inspection relationship identifier from each completed quality record, and treat records with the same triple positioning identifier, the same concealed closure point, or the same system connectivity inspection relationship as the same group of basic records. Then, the system further reads the corresponding compartment delivery surface, through-cabin interface, through-deck interface, watertight boundary, fireproof boundary, upstream operation, and downstream closure operation from the association table, and connects these objects according to their interrelationships to generate a chain of objects to be verified. The chain of objects to be verified refers to a set of associated data with the completed quality record as the data starting point, the interface object and the closure boundary as the verification object, and the upstream operation and downstream closure operation as time constraints. Through this chain of objects to be verified, the system can identify which compartment, system, interface, concealed shutdown point, and its preceding and following operations correspond to a certain quality record within the same data structure.

[0053] After the chain of objects to be verified is generated, the system filters out critical closed interfaces. Critical closed interfaces refer to interface objects that, in the subsequent operations of large cruise ships, would affect cabin delivery, system connectivity, watertight boundaries, or fireproof boundaries if quality anomalies occur after closure or delivery lock-in. When filtering critical closed interfaces, the system does not only judge based on the interface name, but also considers three conditions simultaneously. First, the interface object should be a through-cabin or through-deck interface, meaning it has structural or system connection attributes across cabins or decks. Second, the interface object should be associated with a concealed closure point, meaning it is not easily directly inspected or repaired after subsequent finishing of decorative panels, ceilings, insulation layers, floors, or equipment enclosures. Third, the interface object should also be associated with watertight boundaries, fireproof boundaries, or belong to a system connectivity inspection relationship spanning two or more cabins. Only interface objects that simultaneously meet all the above conditions are filtered as critical closed interfaces. The system writes the filtered critical closed interfaces, along with their interface number, belonging cabin, belonging system, boundary type, concealed closure point, and related work packages, into the critical closed interface list. This list serves as input for the subsequent generation of the closed-state timeline.

[0054] For each critical closed interface in the critical closed interface list, the system generates a closed status timeline based on the time field. The closed status timeline is a data sequence arranged chronologically around a critical closed interface, including upstream work completion, quality element confirmation, re-inspection confirmation, downstream closed work execution, delivery lock-in, and changes in original data checksums. Upstream work completion can come from construction completion records or work package completion records; quality element confirmation can come from inspection pass records, commissioning pass records, or acceptance confirmation records; re-inspection confirmation can come from re-inspection records after defect rectification; downstream closed work execution can come from bulkhead sealing, ceiling sealing, decorative panel installation, insulation covering, or floor paving records; delivery lock-in can come from compartment delivery, area lock-in, or system delivery status records; changes in original data checksums can be determined by comparing checksums generated at different times from the same original record. If a later-generated checksum differs from a previously stored checksum, the system recognizes a change in the original data and adds an original data checksum change event to the closed status timeline.

[0055] The system determines the closure validity of critical closed interfaces based on the closure status timeline. Closure validity refers to whether the necessary quality verification of the critical closed interface has been completed and whether no subsequent events have occurred that would invalidate the original verification when it enters the downstream closure operation or delivery lock state. If the closure status timeline shows that the downstream closure operation execution time is earlier than the quality element verification time, or earlier than the necessary re-verification verification time, it indicates that the critical closed interface was obscured or closed before the quality verification was completed, and the system generates a prohibited closure candidate state. If the closure status timeline shows that new defect records, interface change records, rework records, or changes in original data verification values ​​appear after delivery lock, it indicates that an event that may affect the original quality conclusion occurred after the critical closed interface was locked, and the system generates a rework candidate state requiring unlocking. If a re-verification trigger mark exists after quality element verification, but no re-verification verification record is later than that trigger mark, it indicates that the interface has not yet completed the necessary re-verification, and the system generates a pending re-verification candidate state.

[0056] For example, the fireproof sealing interface of the through-cabin cable in a cabin on the eighth deck is located within a fire boundary, and this interface will become a concealed closure point after the trim panel is installed. The system reads from the closure timeline that the cable laying completion time is June 1st, the fireproof sealing inspection pass date is June 3rd, and the trim panel installation time is June 4th. Under normal circumstances, the closure sequence of this interface meets the requirements. However, if the system reads that the trim panel installation time is June 2nd, but the fireproof sealing inspection pass date is June 3rd, then the downstream closure work occurred earlier than the quality element confirmation, and the system generates a candidate state for prohibiting closure. As another example, if this interface was delivered and locked on June 5th, but a new defect record appears on June 6th or the verification value of the original photograph record changes, the system generates a candidate state for unlocking and rework, instead of continuing to use the original pass conclusion.

[0057] After obtaining candidate states for prohibited closure, rework requiring unlocking, and pending re-inspection, the system performs linkage marking on objects associated with the same critical closure interface. Linkage marking means synchronously writing the abnormal state of the critical closure interface into its associated compartment delivery surface, system continuity check relationship, watertight boundary, or fireproof boundary, ensuring that these objects cannot be judged as normal independently of the critical closure interface. For example, if a through-deck pipe interface belongs to a watertight boundary and participates in the water supply and drainage system continuity check, when this interface is determined to be pending re-inspection, the system not only marks the interface as pending re-inspection but also marks the corresponding watertight boundary and related system continuity check relationship as affected. If a rework record appears after the interface has been delivered and locked, the system marks the corresponding compartment delivery surface as affected by unlocking rework and the related system continuity check relationship as requiring reconfirmation. The system organizes the above linkage marking results into linkage closure status data, which includes at least the critical closure interface identifier, candidate state, triggering event, affected compartment delivery surface, affected boundary, affected system continuity check relationship, and associated completion quality record identifier.

[0058] Finally, the system resolves state conflicts in the linked closed-loop status data. State conflict resolution refers to determining the unique or dominant quality status according to preset priorities when multiple candidate states exist for the same critical closed interface or its associated objects. Since "rework requiring unlocking" indicates an event affecting the quality conclusion occurred after delivery and locking, it has the highest risk and therefore the highest priority; "closing prohibited" indicates a risk of closure even before quality confirmation is completed, and its priority is second; "pending re-inspection" indicates further inspection and confirmation is needed, and its priority is third; a confirmable status is generated only when there are no candidate states for "rework requiring unlocking," "closing prohibited," or "pending re-inspection." For example, if a critical closed interface has both historical qualified records and newly added defect records after delivery and locking, the system generates a "rework requiring unlocking" status according to priority; if an interface has qualified records but lacks re-inspection confirmation records after rectification, the system generates a "pending re-inspection" status; if all upstream operations, quality element confirmations, re-inspection confirmations, and downstream closed-loop operations for an interface meet the requirements in sequence, and no abnormal events occur after delivery and locking, the system generates a confirmable status. Through the above processing, the system can generate quality status data indicating whether it is verifiable, pending re-inspection, prohibited from being closed, or requires unlocking and rework, and provide clear data basis for subsequent completion quality maturity calculation and rework impact path determination.

[0059] Step S104: Based on the quality status data and the correlation table, calculate the completion quality maturity of the compartment, outfitting system and work package according to the compartment delivery surface closure relationship, the compartment interface connection relationship, the watertight boundary constraint relationship, the fire protection boundary constraint relationship and the work sequence relationship, and determine the cross-compartment and cross-system rework impact path caused by unclosed quality elements, incorrect closure or failure of re-inspection.

[0060] After generating quality status data, the system uses this data and a correlation table to calculate the maturity of the completion quality of the subsequent operations on large cruise ships and analyze the impact of rework. Completion quality maturity refers to data results indicating whether a cabin, outfitting system, or work package has reached a verifiable, closureable, or deliverable level. It can be expressed as a percentage, score, or grade. In this embodiment, completion quality maturity is preferably expressed as a percentage to reflect the proportion of quality elements contained in the corresponding object that have met the verification conditions and their impact on closure and delivery. Unclosed quality elements refer to quality elements that have not yet reached a verifiable state, including those awaiting re-inspection, prohibited from closure, requiring unlocking and rework, lacking valid inspection records, or having conflicting states. Incorrect closure refers to the execution of downstream closure operations or delivery locking operations when upstream quality elements are not yet verifiable, hidden closure points are not yet qualified, system connectivity checks are not yet completed, or re-inspection requirements exist. Re-inspection failure refers to the re-inspection result showing as unqualified, incomplete, or still having conflicting records after being triggered.

[0061] When calculating the completion quality maturity of a compartment, the system first reads all quality elements corresponding to the delivery surface of the compartment from the association table and then reads the status category of these quality elements in the quality status data. For quality elements with a status of "confirmable," the system treats them as satisfied items; for quality elements with a status of "pending re-inspection," "prohibited from closure," or "requiring unlocking and rework," the system treats them as unsatisfied items. Different quality elements can be assigned the same weight, or different weights can be assigned based on their impact on compartment closure and delivery. For example, common items such as interior surface inspection and identification confirmation can be assigned ordinary weights, while items that directly affect closure safety and rework difficulty, such as fireproof sealing of penetration interfaces, watertight boundary sealing, and concealed closure point inspection, can be assigned higher weights. The system accumulates the weights corresponding to satisfied items and compares them with the total weight of all quality elements in the compartment to obtain the completion quality maturity of the compartment. For example, a compartment has ten quality elements, eight of which are ordinary elements that have been confirmed, but one fireproof sealing element is pending re-inspection and one concealed closure point is prohibited from being closed. If all elements are equally weighted, the maturity can be recorded as 80%. If the fireproof sealing and concealed closure points are set with higher weights, the maturity will be lower than 80%, thus more accurately reflecting the actual state of the compartment that is not yet suitable for closure or delivery.

[0062] When calculating the completion quality maturity of an outfitting system, the system not only tracks the quality status of individual compartments but also reads the relevant interfaces across compartments and decks, as well as the system's connectivity inspection results, along with the connections between compartments and decks. For example, for a fire protection piping system, the system reads the compartments, compartment interfaces, deck interfaces, fire protection boundaries, and pressure test records that the fire protection piping passes through, and confirms whether the quality status of each interface is verifiable. If a deck interface fails re-inspection, even if the fire protection piping installation records in other compartments are all qualified, the system will still include that interface and its associated system branches as unmet requirements in the maturity calculation. The resulting system maturity reflects the overall connectivity and readiness for delivery of the outfitting system, rather than just the completion rate of individual tasks.

[0063] When calculating the completion quality maturity of a work package, the system reads the corresponding work objects and quality elements, and makes a judgment based on the upstream work, downstream closure work, and work sequence relationships in the relationship table. If the inspection record of a work package itself shows completion, but its upstream work is pending re-inspection or requires unlocking and rework, then the work package should not be directly considered fully mature. If the completion result of a work package will trigger downstream closure work, such as bulkhead sealing, ceiling sealing, or insulation covering, then the system also needs to confirm that its relevant concealed closure points, watertight boundaries, or fireproof boundaries have all reached a verifiable state. In this way, the system can avoid judging quality maturity solely based on the work package completion record while ignoring the upstream and downstream quality dependencies.

[0064] The rework impact path refers to the path that starts from the initial quality element causing the rework risk and proceeds along the relationships in the association table, including compartment delivery surface closure relationships, trans-compartment connection relationships, watertight boundary constraints, fireproof boundary constraints, and work sequence relationships, to determine the potentially affected compartments, interfaces, systems, work packages, and downstream closure operations. When determining the rework impact path, the system first identifies quality elements in a state of pending re-inspection, prohibited from closure, or requiring unlocking for rework, and uses unclosed quality elements, incorrectly closed objects, or objects that failed re-inspection as starting points. Then, it queries the association table for the hidden closure points, compartment delivery surfaces, trans-compartment interfaces, trans-deck interfaces, watertight boundaries, fireproof boundaries, system continuity checks, upstream operations, and downstream closure operations associated with this starting point. Finally, it arranges these directly or indirectly affected objects in the order of impact to form the rework impact path.

[0065] For example, if a through-cabin cable interface on a fireproof boundary fails re-inspection and the interface is already covered by bulkhead trim, the system uses this through-cabin cable interface as the starting point for rework. It then considers the corresponding fireproof boundary, the delivery surface of the compartment, the trim sealing work, related electrical system branches, and the fireproof sealing checks requiring reconfirmation as the affected objects, generating a rework impact path from the failed interface re-inspection to trim removal, sealing repair, re-inspection confirmation, and updating of the compartment delivery status. Similarly, if a through-deck pipe on a watertight boundary fails to close during sealing inspection, the system can determine the affected upper and lower deck areas along the watertight boundary constraints and identify related pipe system branches along the system's connectivity, thereby identifying the scope of rework across compartments and systems.

[0066] Through the above processing, the system can obtain the completion quality maturity of the compartments, outfitting systems and work packages respectively, and can determine the rework impact paths across compartments and systems caused by unclosed quality elements, incorrect closure or failure of re-inspection.

[0067] Furthermore, based on quality status data and correlation tables, and according to the closure relationship of compartment delivery surfaces, the continuity relationship of trans-compartment interfaces, the watertight boundary constraint relationship, the fireproof boundary constraint relationship, and the order of operations, the completion quality maturity of compartments, outfitting systems, and work packages is calculated, and the impact paths of cross-compartment and cross-system rework caused by unclosed quality elements, incorrect closure, or failed re-inspection are determined, including: Based on the quality status data and the aforementioned correlation table, the quality elements corresponding to the target compartment, target outfitting system, and target work package, along with their associated interface objects, concealed closure points, watertight boundaries, fireproof boundaries, system connectivity inspection relationships, and downstream closure operations, are combined to generate delivery constraint data. Based on the delivery constraint data, quality elements that need to be unlocked and reworked, quality elements that are prohibited from being closed and whose corresponding downstream closure operations have been performed, and interface objects that are associated with watertight boundaries or fireproof boundaries and are not in a verifiable state are identified as closed hard blocking items. Quality elements that are in a pending re-inspection state are identified as re-inspection blocking items, and blocking classification data is generated. The completion quality maturity is calculated based on the blockade classification data. Among them, the impact of closed hard blockade items on completion quality maturity is higher than that of re-inspection blockade items. When closed hard blockade items exist, the completion quality maturity of the corresponding target compartment, target outfitting system or target work package is limited to the preset hard blockade maturity upper limit. When there are no closed hard blockade items but there are re-inspection blockade items, the completion quality maturity is limited to the preset re-inspection maturity upper limit, and the maturity result is generated. Using the closed hard blockage items and the re-inspection blockage items as the starting point for rework, the set of affected objects is determined along the downstream closure operations, compartment delivery surface closure relationships, through-cabin interface connection relationships, through-deck interface connection relationships, watertight boundary constraint relationships, fire protection boundary constraint relationships, and system connection inspection relationships in the relationship table; Based on the set of affected objects, the rework impact paths across compartments and systems are generated in the following order: delivery lock release, downstream closed operation dismantling, interface object processing, quality re-inspection, boundary state restoration, system connectivity state restoration, and compartment delivery surface state restoration.

[0068] In this implementation, after generating quality status data, the system further combines the correlation table to calculate the completion quality maturity of the target compartment, target outfitting system, and target work package, and determines the rework impact path. Here, the target compartment, target outfitting system, and target work package refer to the objects that currently require quality maturity assessment or rework impact analysis. They can be specified by the user or automatically determined by the system based on the area to be delivered, planned milestones, or abnormal quality status. For example, when a compartment is about to undergo delivery inspection, that compartment can be designated as the target compartment; when a fire protection system branch needs to undergo connectivity verification, that fire protection system branch can be designated as the target outfitting system; when an interior enclosure work package is about to be executed, that work package can be designated as the target work package.

[0069] The system first extracts the quality elements corresponding to the target object based on the quality status data and the correlation table. Then, it combines each quality element with its associated interface objects, concealed closure points, watertight boundaries, fireproof boundaries, system connectivity inspection relationships, and downstream closure operations to generate delivery constraint data. Delivery constraint data refers to structured constraint data indicating whether a quality element affects compartment delivery, system connectivity, or closure operations. It includes at least the target object identifier, quality element identifier, quality status, interface object identifier, whether it is associated with concealed closure points, watertight boundaries, fireproof boundaries, system connectivity inspection relationships, corresponding downstream closure operations, and the execution status of those downstream closure operations. Through this delivery constraint data, the system can determine not only whether a quality element is completed, but also which interface, boundary, closure operation, and system connectivity relationship will be affected if it is not completed or if there are any abnormalities.

[0070] For example, if a cabin contains a fireproof sealing quality element for a through-cabin cable, and its quality status is "pending re-inspection," and its associated interface objects are the through-cabin cable interface, fireproof boundary, and concealed closure point, with the downstream closure work being the installation of bulkhead trim panels, then the system will combine this information into a delivery constraint data set. Similarly, if the watertight seal quality status of a water supply / drainage pipe's through-deck interface is "prohibited from closure," and the ceiling closure work has already been performed, then this quality element in the delivery constraint data will simultaneously contain information about its association with the watertight boundary, its association with the through-deck interface, and the completion of the downstream closure work.

[0071] The system then classifies the blocking based on the delivery constraint data. A hard blocking item is an abnormal object that has reached a level sufficient to prevent compartment delivery, system connectivity confirmation, or subsequent closure restoration. Specifically, quality elements requiring unlocking and rework are identified as hard blocking items; quality elements in a prohibited closure state where the corresponding downstream closure operation has already been performed are also identified as hard blocking items; additionally, if an interface object is associated with a watertight or fireproof boundary and the interface object is not in a verifiable state, it is also identified as a hard blocking item. A re-verification blocking item refers to a quality element that has not yet reached the level of hard blocking but cannot be used as a basis for delivery before re-verification is completed; that is, a quality element in a state awaiting re-verification. The system writes the above identification results into the blocking classification data. The blocking classification data includes at least the quality element identifier, blocking type, triggering reason, associated interface object, associated boundary type, downstream closure operation execution status, and corresponding target object identifier.

[0072] For example, if a fireproof sealing quality element is in a state requiring unlocking and rework, the system will identify it as a hard-blocking item regardless of whether downstream sealing work has been performed. Similarly, if a through-deck pipe sealing quality element is in a state of "sealing prohibited," and ceiling sealing work has been completed, indicating an anomaly involving modification or rework risk, the system will also identify it as a hard-blocking item. Furthermore, if an interface object belongs to a watertight boundary, but its quality status is "pending re-inspection" or "sealing prohibited," the system will also treat this interface object as a hard-blocking item to avoid misjudging a watertight boundary as deliverable without confirmation of critical interfaces. In contrast, if a general decorative appearance inspection is in a "pending re-inspection" state and is not related to concealed closure points, watertight boundaries, fireproof boundaries, or system connectivity inspections, it is usually treated as a re-inspection blocking item or a general incomplete item, and will not directly become a hard-blocking item.

[0073] After obtaining the blocking grading data, the system calculates the completion quality maturity of the target compartment, target outfitting system, and target work package. Completion quality maturity can be expressed as a percentage, score, or grade; in this embodiment, a percentage is used. During calculation, the system can first obtain a basic maturity level based on the number or weight of the quality elements contained in the target object, and then adjust it according to the blocking grading data. Closed hard blocking items have a greater impact on maturity than re-inspection blocking items because closed hard blocking items typically involve already closed, locked, watertight boundaries, fireproof boundaries, or system penetration risks, and their impact on delivery reliability is greater than that of simple re-inspection items.

[0074] To prevent maturity results from being masked by a large number of routine completed items, the system employs maturity cap control. The preset hard-block maturity cap refers to the highest maturity level allowed for a target object when it has closed hard-block items; the preset re-inspection maturity cap refers to the highest maturity level allowed for a target object when it does not have closed hard-block items but has re-inspection blocking items. The hard-block maturity cap is lower than the re-inspection maturity cap. For example, the hard-block maturity cap can be set at 60%, and the re-inspection maturity cap at 85%. If a compartment has twenty quality elements, nineteen of which are confirmed, and only one fireproofing seal for a through-cabin cable is in a rework state requiring unlocking, the compartment might reach 95% completion rate under normal conditions. However, due to the presence of closed hard-block items, the system limits the maturity to no more than 60%. If the compartment does not have hard-block items, but one fireproofing quality element is awaiting re-inspection, the system limits the maturity to no more than 85%. In this way, maturity results can reflect the actual impact of key closure risks on delivery status in the post-shipment operations of large cruise ships, rather than simply reflecting the proportion of completed items.

[0075] After generating maturity results, the system uses closed hard-blocking items and re-inspection blocking items as rework starting points. A rework starting point refers to an abnormal quality element or interface object that triggers the rework impact analysis; it can be an unclosed quality element, an incorrectly closed object, or an object that failed re-inspection. The system reads the rework starting point from the blocking classification data and determines the affected objects level by level along the downstream closure operations, compartment delivery surface closure relationships, through-cabin interface continuity relationships, through-deck interface continuity relationships, watertight boundary constraints, fire protection boundary constraints, and system continuity checks in the relationship table. The set of affected objects refers to the set of objects directly or indirectly affected by one or more rework starting points, which may include compartment delivery surfaces, through-cabin interfaces, through-deck interfaces, watertight boundaries, fire protection boundaries, downstream closure operations, related outfitting systems, system continuity check tasks, and related work packages.

[0076] For example, if the fireproof sealing re-inspection of a cable interface penetrating a compartment fails, and this interface is associated with fireproof boundaries and electrical system continuity checks, and its downstream bulkhead trim panels have already been installed, the system uses this interface or its corresponding quality element as the starting point for rework. It then searches along the association table to find the affected bulkhead trim panel sealing work, fireproof boundaries, the delivery surface of the compartment, electrical system continuity checks, and related re-inspection work, and adds these objects to the affected object set. As another example, if a water supply and drainage pipe interface penetrating a deck is in a state requiring unlocking and rework, the system can determine the relevant compartments on the upper and lower decks along the penetration relationship of the interface, determine the affected watertight boundaries along the watertight boundary constraints, and determine the relevant water supply and drainage system branches along the system continuity checks, thus forming a cross-compartment, cross-system affected object set.

[0077] After identifying the set of affected objects, the system generates rework impact paths according to a preset processing sequence. This sequence reflects the actual rework logic of large cruise ship operations: first, the delivery lock is released, changing the target object from an unmodifiable state to a processable state; then, the downstream closure work already performed is dismantled to restore accessibility to concealed interfaces or boundary locations; next, interface objects are processed, such as resealing, re-sealing, reconnecting, or reinstalling; then, a quality re-inspection is conducted to confirm the quality status after rework; after passing the re-inspection, the watertight or fireproof boundary status is restored; then, the system connectivity check status is restored; finally, the cabin delivery surface status is restored. The system arranges affected objects according to this sequence, forming rework impact paths across cabins and systems.

[0078] For example, if the fireproof sealing re-inspection of cables penetrating the cabin, already covered by decorative panels, fails, the rework impact path could sequentially include: unlocking the corresponding cabin delivery lock, removing the decorative panels, handling the fireproof sealing of the cable penetrating interface, performing a fireproof sealing re-inspection, restoring the fireproof boundary status, restoring the electrical system continuity check status, and restoring the cabin delivery surface status. For cases of abnormal watertight sealing of pipes penetrating the deck, the rework impact path could include: unlocking the relevant area, removing the downstream ceiling or enclosure, handling the pipe penetrating interface, performing a watertight sealing re-inspection, restoring the watertight boundary status, restoring the water supply and drainage system continuity check status, and updating the delivery surface status of the relevant cabins on the upper and lower decks. Through the above processing, the system transforms quality status data and correlation tables into maturity results and rework impact paths.

[0079] Step S105: Generate a structured completion quality data package based on the completion quality maturity and rework impact path. The structured completion quality data package includes maturity results, prohibited closed objects, objects to be re-inspected, rework impact path, reworkable window, and original data traceability identifier.

[0080] After obtaining the completion quality maturity level and the rework impact path, the system generates a structured completion quality data package based on these two factors. The structured completion quality data package refers to completion quality result data organized according to preset fields, hierarchical relationships, and data formats. It can be directly read and accessed by quality management systems, construction planning systems, delivery management systems, or visualization systems. This data package can be implemented using database records, spreadsheets, JSON files, XML files, interface messages, or other data formats capable of expressing field relationships. This invention does not limit the specific file format, as long as it can clearly record maturity results, prohibited closed objects, objects awaiting re-inspection, rework impact paths, reworkable windows, and original data traceability identifiers with clearly defined fields, and can be recognized and processed by subsequent systems.

[0081] When generating a structured completion quality data package, the system first reads the completion quality maturity obtained in step S104 according to the dimensions of compartments, outfitting systems, and work packages, and organizes it into maturity results. Maturity results can include object name, object type, object identifier, corresponding hull partition, maturity value, maturity level, number of unmet quality elements, and the main reasons for the decrease in maturity. For example, if a compartment has a maturity of 75% and a maturity level of "not closureable," the main reasons could be recorded as "fireproof sealing pending re-inspection" and "watertightness check of penetration deck interface not closed." Through such structured records, management personnel or subsequent systems can directly determine whether the compartment meets the delivery or closure conditions without having to review the original inspection records item by item.

[0082] The system also extracts objects marked as "prohibited from closure" from the quality status data, generating prohibited closure object data. Prohibited closure objects can be compartment delivery surfaces, trans-compartment interfaces, trans-deck interfaces, watertight boundaries, fireproof boundaries, concealed closure points, or work packages. Each prohibited closure object records at least the object identifier, object type, corresponding location, reason for prohibition, triggered closure constraint rules, relevant quality elements, and associated downstream closure operations. For example, if the fireproof sealing of a trans-compartment interface has not yet passed re-inspection, and its downstream operation is the installation of bulkhead trim panels, the data package can record this trans-compartment interface as a prohibited closure object, and record the reason for prohibition as "Fireproof sealing re-inspection not completed, trim panel closure prohibited." This allows the construction planning system to directly identify risky objects when scheduling subsequent closure operations.

[0083] For quality objects in the "Pending Re-inspection" status, the system generates "Pending Re-inspection Object Data." This data may include the object's identifier, corresponding quality element, reason for triggering the re-inspection, conclusion of the most recent inspection, most recent rectification record, the required re-inspection time or stage, and the handling method after re-inspection. For example, if a through-deck pipe interface is deemed unsealable during the first inspection, and a rectification completion record subsequently appears, the system will list this interface as a "Pending Re-inspection Object" and record the re-inspection trigger reason as "reconfirmation required after defect rectification." If the re-inspection is successful, the system can subsequently update it to "Confirmable"; if the re-inspection fails, it will remain in the "Pending Re-inspection" state or be converted to a "Prohibited Closure, Requires Unlocking and Rework" state.

[0084] The system writes the rework impact paths determined in step S104 into a structured completion quality data package. The rework impact paths can be organized in the data package according to the order of the initial anomaly object, directly affected objects, indirectly affected objects, and recommended handling. For each path, the system can record the path number, initial quality element, anomaly type, affected compartment, affected outfitting system, affected work package, involved sealing operations, involved watertight or fireproof boundaries, and each completion quality record along the path. For example, if a through-cabin cable interface on a fireproof boundary fails re-inspection, and its outer decorative panel has already been sealed, the rework impact path can be recorded sequentially as: through-cabin cable interface, fireproof sealing quality element, corresponding fireproof boundary, decorative panel sealing operation, the delivery surface of the compartment, related electrical system branches, and re-inspection operation. Through this path, managers can clearly understand that rework not only involves a single interface but may also affect the compartment sealing status and system delivery status.

[0085] The structured completion quality data package also includes a reworkable window. For each abnormal object or rework path, the system reads the reworkable window configured in step S101 and generates a reworkable prompt based on the downstream closure operation status in the association table. If an object is still in the pre-closure stage, the data package can be marked as "directly reworkable"; if the downstream closure operation has been completed, the data package can be marked as "rework requires unlocking"; if the reworkable window is about to close, the data package can be marked as "priority processing". For example, if a concealed closure point can be directly reworked before the ceiling is closed, but requires the ceiling to be removed before rework, the data package can record the pre-closure stage as a reworkable window and automatically adjust the processing method to rework requires unlocking after the window closes.

[0086] The original data traceability identifier is used to ensure that each result in the structured finished quality data package can be traced back to its corresponding original finished quality data. This traceability identifier can include the original record number, data source system, collection time, collection personnel, attachment index, original data checksum, and the corresponding finished quality record identifier. When a user views a maturity result, a prohibited closed object, or a rework impact path, they can locate the original inspection record, photograph, debugging data, or re-inspection record that generated that result based on the original data traceability identifier, and confirm whether the original data has changed after the data package was generated using the original data checksum.

[0087] Through the above processing, step S105 converts the maturity calculation results and rework impact analysis results obtained in the previous steps into structured data output that can be stored, transmitted, queried and traced.

[0088] Furthermore, based on the completion quality maturity and rework impact path, a structured completion quality data package is generated. This structured completion quality data package includes maturity results, prohibited closed objects, objects to be re-inspected, rework impact path, reworkable window, and original data traceability identifiers, including: Based on the completion quality maturity, rework impact path, and quality status data, a delivery status snapshot table is generated according to the compartment delivery surface, outfitting system, and work package. The delivery status snapshot table includes the object number, maturity result, status category, reason for maturity limitation, and data package version number. Based on the delivery status snapshot table, objects are divided into deliverable objects, prohibited from being closed, objects to be re-inspected, and objects that need to be unlocked and reworked. Closure gate codes for allowing passage, prohibiting closure, triggering re-inspection, and unlocking rework are configured respectively, and a closure gate table is generated. Based on the closed gate control table and the rework impact path, downstream closed operation blocking instructions are generated for prohibited closed objects, re-inspection task instructions are generated for objects to be re-inspected, and rework execution instructions are generated for objects that need to be unlocked and reworked, arranged in the order of delivery lock release, downstream closed operation dismantling, interface object processing, quality re-inspection, boundary state restoration, system connection state restoration and compartment delivery surface state restoration, and an operation control table is generated. Based on the work control table, each blocking instruction, re-inspection task instruction, and rework execution instruction is bound to the corresponding rework start point, affected object, reworkable window, earliest window deadline, and responsible work package to generate a window constraint execution table. Based on the window constraint execution table, bind each maturity result, closing gate code and operation control instruction to the corresponding original record number, source system, attachment index, original data check value and data package version number to generate an evidence verification chain list; The delivery status snapshot table, closed gating table, work control table, window constraint execution table, and evidence verification chain are encapsulated into a structured completion quality data package. When any original data verification value or data package version number changes, the corresponding closed gating code is updated to trigger re-inspection or unlock rework.

[0089] In this embodiment, after obtaining data on completion quality maturity, rework impact paths, and quality status, the system organizes these results into a structured completion quality data package. This structured completion quality data package is not merely a regular report for display or archiving, but a set of data that can be recognized and accessed by the quality management system, construction planning system, re-inspection dispatch system, or delivery management system. It is used to control subsequent operations such as closed-loop release, re-inspection triggering, rework execution, and evidence traceability.

[0090] The system first generates a delivery status snapshot table according to the compartment delivery surface, outfitting system, and work package. The delivery status snapshot table is a data table that permanently records the current completion quality status of the target object under a specific data package version. It includes at least the object number, object type, maturity result, status category, reason for maturity limitation, and data package version number. The object number indicates the specific compartment delivery surface, outfitting system, or work package; the maturity result comes from the aforementioned maturity calculation; the status category can include deliverable, prohibited from closure, pending re-inspection, and requiring unlocking and rework; the reason for maturity limitation records the reasons why maturity cannot continue to improve, such as the existence of hard closure barriers, re-inspection barriers, unconfirmed associated watertight boundaries, unconfirmed associated fireproof boundaries, or incomplete system connectivity checks. The data package version number identifies the data package batch to which this snapshot table belongs, and can be generated according to the generation time, project stage, or system serial number. For example, before a certain compartment is delivered for inspection, the system generates a data packet with version number V20260628-001, and records in this version that the maturity of the compartment is 60%, the status category is prohibited from being closed, and the reason for the limited maturity is that the fireproof sealing of the through-compartment cable needs to be unlocked and reworked.

[0091] Subsequently, the system generates a closure gating table based on the delivery status snapshot table. The closure gating table is a control data table used to indicate whether subsequent systems allow delivery, closure, re-inspection, or unlocking / rework of a particular object. The system categorizes objects in the delivery status snapshot table into deliverable objects, objects prohibited from closure, objects awaiting re-inspection, and objects requiring unlocking / rework, and configures closure gating codes for each. Closure gating codes are status control codes that can be directly recognized by subsequent systems; they can be implemented using character encoding, numerical encoding, or database enumeration values. For example, "allowed" can be represented as "PASS," "prohibited from closure" as "BLOCK," "triggering re-inspection" as "RECHECK," and "unlocking / rework" as "REWORK." If all critical quality elements of a certain compartment's delivery surface are in a verifiable state, the system configures a release gate code; if an interface object is in a prohibited closure state, the system configures a prohibition gate code; if a quality element has been closed due to a defect but has not yet been re-inspected, the system configures a re-inspection gate code; if an object has original data changes or rework records after delivery locking, the system configures a rework unlock gate code.

[0092] The system further generates a work control table based on the closure gating table and the rework impact path. The work control table is used to convert the closure gating results into subsequent executable work control instructions. For prohibited closure objects, the system generates a downstream closure operation blocking instruction, which includes at least the blocked downstream closure operation number, the blocked object, the blocking reason, and the quality element triggering the blocking. For example, if the fireproof sealing of a certain inter-cabin interface is not confirmed, the system generates a blocking instruction for the corresponding bulkhead trim panel installation operation. For objects requiring re-inspection, the system generates a re-inspection task instruction, which includes at least the object to be re-inspected, the re-inspection quality element, the re-inspection triggering reason, and the associated original record. For objects requiring unlocking and rework, the system generates a rework execution instruction, which is arranged in the order of delivery lock release, downstream closure operation removal, interface object processing, quality re-inspection, boundary state restoration, system connectivity state restoration, and compartment delivery surface state restoration. This sequence is consistent with the actual processing logic of large cruise ships' post-shipment operations, which is to first remove the unmodifiable status, then restore accessibility to concealed locations, then handle specific interface or boundary issues, and finally restore the system and cabin delivery status.

[0093] After generating the work control table, the system binds each blocking instruction, re-inspection task instruction, and rework execution instruction to its corresponding rework start point, affected object, reworkable window, earliest window deadline, and responsible work package, generating a window constraint execution table. The window constraint execution table clarifies the time constraints and scope of responsibility for each control instruction at the execution level. The rework start point is the quality element or interface object that triggers the control instruction. Affected objects may include compartment delivery surfaces, outfitting systems, work packages, watertight boundaries, fireproof boundaries, downstream closure operations, or system connectivity checks. The reworkable window indicates the timeframe within which the object can be processed before triggering wider dismantling or delivery unlocking. The earliest window deadline is the earliest deadline reached within the reworkable window, such as the earliest actual execution time of a downstream closure operation, the planned start time of a downstream closure operation, or the delivery lockout time. The responsible work package indicates the work package that needs to undertake processing, re-inspection, or rework tasks. Through this window constraint execution table, the system can distinguish which anomalies should be prioritized and which anomalies have exceeded the reworkable window and require unlocking and rework.

[0094] For example, if a watertight seal interface of a through-deck pipeline is in a state awaiting re-inspection, and the ceiling closure plan starts on June 10th with a delivery lockout date of June 12th, the system will record the earliest window deadline as June 10th in the window constraint execution table and bind the re-inspection task instruction to the corresponding pipeline inspection work package. If the on-site closure confirmation record shows that the ceiling was actually closed on June 8th, the earliest window deadline will be updated to June 8th. The system can then change the status of this object from awaiting re-inspection to a higher-risk closure control state to prevent continued execution according to the original plan.

[0095] The system also generates an evidence verification list based on the window constraint execution table. The evidence verification list is a data table used to ensure that each maturity result, closure gate code, and work control instruction can be traced back to the original evidence. It includes at least the maturity result number, closure gate code, work control instruction number, original record number, source system, attachment index, original data checksum, and data package version number. The original record number is used to locate inspection records, debugging records, defect records, construction plan records, or closure work confirmation records; the source system indicates which system the evidence comes from; the attachment index is used to locate photos, videos, test reports, or signed confirmation documents; the original data checksum is used to confirm whether the original evidence has changed after the data package was generated; and the data package version number is used to determine which batch of data packages the evidence belongs to. Through the evidence verification list, when a user views a prohibited closure object or rework execution instruction, they can directly trace back to the original quality data and attachments that led to that conclusion.

[0096] Finally, the system encapsulates the delivery status snapshot table, closure gating table, job control table, window constraint execution table, and evidence verification chain list according to the same data packet number, generating a structured completion quality data packet. This data packet can be implemented using database records, JSON files, XML files, interface messages, or other structured formats, as long as the tables can be linked through object number, job control instruction number, rework start point number, original record number, and data packet version number. The system also monitors changes to the generated data packets. When any original data verification value changes, it indicates that the original quality data, attachments, or closure job confirmation time on which the data packet was based has changed; when the data packet version number changes, it indicates that the quality status or control instruction of the corresponding object has been recalculated. At this time, the system updates the corresponding closure gating code according to the current status of the changed object. If the change occurs on an object that has not yet been delivered and locked or has not yet created a rework risk, the closure gating code can be updated to trigger re-verification; if the change occurs on an object that has been delivered and locked, a closed object, or an object for which a rework execution instruction has been generated, the closure gating code can be updated to unlock rework.

[0097] For example, a cabin might be marked as release-ready in data package version V1, but the attachment index of a fireproof sealing inspection photo within that cabin changes subsequently, resulting in a different original data verification value. Upon detecting this change, the system will no longer use the release-ready conclusion from V1, but instead update the corresponding closure gate code to trigger re-inspection. If the cabin has already been delivered and locked, the system will update the closure gate code to unlock and rework, and generate a corresponding rework execution instruction in the work control table. Thus, the structured completion quality data package can synchronously adjust the closure control status when evidence changes or versions are updated, avoiding erroneous delivery or closure due to changes in quality evidence, data modifications after closure, or new anomalies added after locking in subsequent operations on large cruise ships.

[0098] A second embodiment of this application provides an electronic device, the electronic device comprising: processor; The memory is used to store a program, which, when read and executed by the processor, executes a method for processing the completion quality data of post-operation work on a large cruise ship, as provided in the first embodiment of this application.

[0099] The third embodiment of this application provides a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon. When the program is executed by a processor, it performs a method for processing the completion quality data of post-ship operations of a large cruise ship, as provided in the first embodiment of this application.

[0100] Although this application discloses preferred embodiments as described above, it is not intended to limit this application. Any person skilled in the art can make possible changes and modifications without departing from the spirit and scope of this application. Therefore, the scope of protection of this application should be determined by the scope defined in the claims of this application.

Claims

1. A method for processing completion quality data of post-ship operations on large cruise ships, characterized in that, include: Acquire the completion quality data of post-ship operations on large cruise ships, and configure a triple positioning identifier for each completion quality data point, consisting of cabin location, outfitting system, work package and interface object. At the same time, configure concealed closing point, delivery lock status, repairable window, re-inspection trigger mark and original data verification value to generate a set of completion quality records. Based on the set of completed quality records, establish a relationship table between the compartment delivery surface, the interface between the compartment and the interface between the deck and the watertight boundary, the fireproof boundary, the concealed closure point, the work object and the quality element, and mark the upstream operation, downstream closure operation and system connection inspection relationship corresponding to each quality element in the relationship table. Based on the association table and the preset subsequent operation closure constraint rules, the completion quality records pointing to the same triple positioning mark, the same hidden closure point, or the same system through-check relationship are checked for time sequence, interface ownership, status before and after closure, re-inspection trigger conditions, and quality status consistency. Quality status data indicating that it can be confirmed, awaits re-inspection, is prohibited from closure, or needs to be unlocked and reworked are generated. Based on quality status data and correlation tables, the completion quality maturity of compartments, outfitting systems and work packages is calculated according to the closure relationship of compartment delivery surfaces, the connection relationship of cross-compartment interfaces, the watertight boundary constraint relationship, the fire protection boundary constraint relationship and the order of operations. The impact paths of cross-compartment and cross-system rework caused by unclosed quality elements, incorrect closure or failure of re-inspection are determined. Based on the completion quality maturity and rework impact path, a structured completion quality data package is generated. The structured completion quality data package includes maturity results, prohibited closed objects, objects to be re-inspected, rework impact path, reworkable window, and original data traceability identifier.

2. The method for processing completion quality data of post-ship operations on large cruise ships according to claim 1, characterized in that, Based on the association table and preset subsequent operation closure constraint rules, the completed quality records pointing to the same triple positioning identifier, the same hidden closure point, or the same system connection inspection relationship are checked for consistency in time sequence, interface affiliation, state before and after closure, re-inspection trigger conditions, and quality status. This generates quality status data indicating whether the work is verifiable, awaiting re-inspection, prohibited from closure, or requires unlocking and rework, including: Based on the association table, complete quality records with the same triple positioning mark, the same concealed closure point, or the same system connection inspection relationship are bound to their corresponding compartment delivery surface, compartment interface, deck interface, watertight boundary, fireproof boundary, upstream operation and downstream closure operation to generate a chain of objects to be verified. Select interface objects from the chain of objects to be verified that meet the following conditions as key closed interfaces: the interface object belongs to the compartment interface or the deck interface, the interface object is associated with the concealed closure point, and the interface object is associated with the watertight boundary, the fireproof boundary or the system connection inspection relationship that spans two or more compartments, and generate a list of key closed interfaces based on the selection results. For each critical closed interface in the list of critical closed interfaces, a closed status timeline is generated according to the time sequence of upstream operation completion, quality element confirmation, re-inspection confirmation, downstream closed operation execution, delivery lock-in, and changes in original data verification values. The effectiveness of closing key interfaces is determined based on the timeline of the closing status: when the downstream closing operation is executed earlier than the quality element confirmation time or the re-inspection confirmation time, a candidate status of prohibiting closure is generated; when new defect records, interface change records, rework records, or changes in original data verification values ​​occur after delivery locking, a candidate status of needing to be unlocked and reworked is generated; when a re-inspection trigger mark exists after quality element confirmation and there is no re-inspection confirmation record later than the re-inspection trigger mark, a candidate status of pending re-inspection is generated. Based on the candidate status of prohibited closure, candidate status of needing to be unlocked and reworked, and candidate status of pending re-inspection, the delivery surface of the compartment, the system connection inspection relationship, the watertight boundary or the fireproof boundary associated with the same key closed interface are linked and linked closure status data is generated. Based on the priorities of needing to unlock and rework, prohibiting closure, awaiting re-inspection, and confirmable, the linked closure status data is used to resolve status conflicts and generate quality status data.

3. The method for processing the completion quality data of post-ship operations on large cruise ships according to claim 1, characterized in that, Based on quality status data and correlation tables, the completion quality maturity of compartments, outfitting systems, and work packages is calculated according to the closure relationship of compartment delivery surfaces, the continuity relationship of trans-compartment interfaces, the watertight boundary constraint relationship, the fire protection boundary constraint relationship, and the order of operations. The impact paths of rework across compartments and systems caused by unclosed quality elements, incorrect closures, or failed re-inspections are determined, including: Based on the quality status data and the aforementioned correlation table, the quality elements corresponding to the target compartment, target outfitting system, and target work package, along with their associated interface objects, concealed closure points, watertight boundaries, fireproof boundaries, system connectivity inspection relationships, and downstream closure operations, are combined to generate delivery constraint data. Based on the delivery constraint data, quality elements that need to be unlocked and reworked, quality elements that are prohibited from being closed and whose corresponding downstream closure operations have been performed, and interface objects that are associated with watertight boundaries or fireproof boundaries and are not in a verifiable state are identified as closed hard blocking items. Quality elements that are in a pending re-inspection state are identified as re-inspection blocking items, and blocking classification data is generated. The completion quality maturity is calculated based on the blockade classification data. Among them, the impact of closed hard blockade items on completion quality maturity is higher than that of re-inspection blockade items. When closed hard blockade items exist, the completion quality maturity of the corresponding target compartment, target outfitting system or target work package is limited to the preset hard blockade maturity upper limit. When there are no closed hard blockade items but there are re-inspection blockade items, the completion quality maturity is limited to the preset re-inspection maturity upper limit, and the maturity result is generated. Using the closed hard blockage items and the re-inspection blockage items as the starting point for rework, the set of affected objects is determined along the downstream closure operations, compartment delivery surface closure relationships, through-cabin interface connection relationships, through-deck interface connection relationships, watertight boundary constraint relationships, fire protection boundary constraint relationships, and system connection inspection relationships in the relationship table; Based on the set of affected objects, the rework impact paths across compartments and systems are generated in the following order: delivery lock release, downstream closed operation dismantling, interface object processing, quality re-inspection, boundary state restoration, system connectivity state restoration, and compartment delivery surface state restoration.

4. The method for processing completion quality data of post-ship operations on large cruise ships according to claim 1, characterized in that, Based on the set of completed quality records, a relationship table is established between the compartment delivery surface, compartment interface, deck interface, watertight boundary, fireproof boundary, concealed closure point, work object, and quality elements. The relationship table is used to mark the upstream operations, downstream closure operations, and system connectivity inspection relationships corresponding to each quality element, including: Based on the triple positioning identifier in the completed quality record set, extract the compartment delivery surface number, interface object number, work object number and quality element number, and generate an object index table; Based on the object index table, interface objects belonging to the same outfitting system and spanning two or more compartments or decks are grouped into interface connection bundles, and an interface connection bundle number is generated. Based on the interface connection bundle number, each interface object is matched with the watertight boundary, fireproof boundary, concealed closure point and downstream closure operation to generate an interface boundary constraint table containing boundary type, connection direction and reachable state after closure. Based on the interface boundary constraint table and the work package plan sequence, determine the upstream work, downstream closed work and system connectivity check relationship corresponding to each quality element, and generate a quality dependency table; Based on the interface object number, interface connection bundle number, and quality element number, the object index table, interface boundary constraint table, and quality dependency table are merged to generate an association table. Interface objects that are simultaneously associated with concealed closure points, interface connection bundles, and watertight or fireproof boundaries are marked as critical closed interfaces.

5. The method for processing the completion quality data of post-ship operations on large cruise ships according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process involves acquiring post-shipment work completion quality data and configuring a triple positioning identifier for each data point, consisting of cabin location, outfitting system, work package, and interface object. Simultaneously, it configures concealed closing points, delivery lock status, repairable windows, re-inspection trigger markers, and original data verification values ​​to generate a set of completion quality records, including: The completion quality data of subsequent operations are obtained from the inspection terminal, debugging system, defect system, construction plan system and closed operation confirmation record, and a source data table is generated according to the original record number, source system, collection time, attachment index and actual execution time of the closed operation. Based on the compartment number, outfitting system number, work package number, and interface object number in the source data table, a triple positioning identifier is generated, and finished quality data with the same triple positioning identifier but different source systems are grouped into the same quality object data group. Based on the query of the quality object data group, the corresponding downstream closure operation will be marked as a hidden closure point if the interface object is blocked by the bulkhead sealing plate, ceiling closure, thermal insulation coverage, ground paving or equipment enclosure, and the closure reachability status will be generated according to the actual execution time of the closure operation. Based on the concealed closure point, closure reachability status, downstream closure operation plan time, downstream closure operation actual execution time, and delivery lock status, a reworkable window is generated, wherein the cutoff time of the reworkable window is the earliest occurrence of the downstream closure operation actual execution time, the downstream closure operation plan start time, or the delivery lock time. Based on the quality object data group, reworkable window, and delivery lock status, identify defect closure, interface change, rework record, and changes in original data after locking, configure re-inspection trigger flags, and generate original data verification values ​​for original data fields, attachment indexes, and actual execution time of closed operations to form a set of completed quality records.

6. The method for processing completion quality data of post-ship operations on large cruise ships according to claim 1, characterized in that, The process involves generating a structured completion quality data package based on the completion quality maturity and rework impact path. This structured completion quality data package includes maturity results, prohibited closed objects, objects awaiting re-inspection, rework impact path, reworkable window, and original data traceability identifiers. Based on the completion quality maturity, rework impact path, and quality status data, a delivery status snapshot table is generated according to the compartment delivery surface, outfitting system, and work package. The delivery status snapshot table includes the object number, maturity result, status category, reason for maturity limitation, and data package version number. Based on the delivery status snapshot table, objects are divided into deliverable objects, prohibited from being closed, objects to be re-inspected, and objects that need to be unlocked and reworked. Closure gate codes for allowing passage, prohibiting closure, triggering re-inspection, and unlocking rework are configured respectively, and a closure gate table is generated. Based on the closed gate control table and the rework impact path, downstream closed operation blocking instructions are generated for prohibited closed objects, re-inspection task instructions are generated for objects to be re-inspected, and rework execution instructions are generated for objects that need to be unlocked and reworked, arranged in the order of delivery lock release, downstream closed operation dismantling, interface object processing, quality re-inspection, boundary state restoration, system connection state restoration and compartment delivery surface state restoration, and an operation control table is generated. Based on the work control table, each blocking instruction, re-inspection task instruction, and rework execution instruction is bound to the corresponding rework start point, affected object, reworkable window, earliest window deadline, and responsible work package to generate a window constraint execution table. Based on the window constraint execution table, bind each maturity result, closing gate code and operation control instruction to the corresponding original record number, source system, attachment index, original data verification value and data package version number to generate an evidence verification chain list; The delivery status snapshot table, closed gating table, work control table, window constraint execution table, and evidence verification chain are encapsulated into a structured completion quality data package. When any original data verification value or data package version number changes, the corresponding closed gating code is updated to trigger re-inspection or unlock rework.

Images