Explain the maintenance priority with evidence

Return to the planning question and explain the order of EQ-008 and EQ-005, its evidence, uncertainty, and remaining checks.

Question for this chapter

Which asset goes first, and how far should the team trust that decision?

Return to the original problem

Before the meeting, sensors, inspections, DGA, and failure histories were spread across different tables. HI alone shows current condition but not remaining time. RUL alone omits the condition clues and field context. Without applying budget and crew capacity, neither output becomes an executable order.

The solution is not to declare a failure from one score. Separate current condition from remaining time, inspect the connected context for missing evidence, and then apply a visible rule and constraints to build a work sequence.

Complete the solution

Initial problem	Applied solution	Evidence left behind	What changed
Condition signals used unlike units and schedules.	Summarized sensors, inspections, DGA, and load as HI.	EQ-005 HI 76.2767 (B)	Current condition is comparable.
HI did not show remaining time.	Estimated RUL with operating-condition adjustment.	1.9813 years, 90% interval 0–3.6664	A representative value and uncertainty stay together.
Score rows lacked field context.	Connected subsystems, sensors, and inspections.	Five subsystems, three sensors, one normal inspection	The crew sees both context and missing records.
Several candidates competed for constrained work.	Applied criticality, HI, hazard, and RUL with budget and crews.	Scores 0.3501 / 0.3427	First order and same-day scope are explicit.
A single run could be overtrusted.	Rechecked distributions in the dashboard and report.	Two assets below two years RUL, five anomalies	The decision and its limits are reported together.

State the final decision

In this run, inspect EQ-008 first and place EQ-005 immediately after it. Both assets have the same criticality and RUL below two years. EQ-008 has slightly shorter RUL at 1.9643 years and the highest hazard rate, so its priority is 0.3501. EQ-005 has slightly lower HI but ranks second at 0.3427. Both receive MAJOR_OVERHAUL on scheduled day 0. Confirm the wide RUL ranges, current field evidence, and outage window before finalizing scope.

This report separates observed values, the applied rule, the decision, and remaining checks. It does not present first priority as confirmed failure or a safety verdict.

Completion check

Can explain why EQ-005's thermal flag and HI answer different questions.
Can distinguish the RUL point estimate, 90% interval, and condition factor.
Do not interpret hazard rate as a failure probability over a specific period.
Confirmed EQ-005's subsystem, sensor, and inspection links, plus missing defect and maintenance links.
Can explain how the KRW 500,000 budget and three daily crew slots affected this schedule.
Can explain why EQ-008 goes first and EQ-005 follows.

Apply it elsewhere

Before using this pattern in real asset management, ask:

Which statutory period, safety class, or outage window must become a hard constraint?
What field check comes first when an interval is wide or inspection history is sparse?
Where should model, data, and human-decision changes be recorded for approval and audit?

Continue learning

Choose a CNC inspection order from three HIGH alerts to compare a shorter-cycle sensor-alert workflow.
Data Engineer Path to extend pipeline runs and schedules into operations.