Heritage Survey Assistant
Resources
Knowledge Tools

Condition Recording Guide

A practical guide to writing clearer conservation survey records by separating what is observed from interpretation, risk and recommendation.

Why separation matters

Good condition records distinguish clearly between what is directly observed, what is inferred, what may be causing the condition, what risk it presents, and what action is recommended.

Keeping these elements distinct avoids overstating certainty, prevents diagnostic bias, and ensures that conservation decisions are based on verifiable evidence. This improves clarity, reduces liability, and supports responsible stewardship and professional reporting.

The five-part observation structure

1. Observation

What can be directly seen, measured or recorded?

e.g. Orange-brown staining, 15mm fissure.

2. Interpretation

What does the observation suggest, without overstating certainty?

e.g. Suggests localized corrosion, surface cracking.

3. Possible Cause

What mechanism or circumstance may be contributing?

e.g. Rainwater run-off, thermal movement.

4. Risk

What could happen if the condition is left unmanaged?

e.g. Progressive section loss, water ingress.

5. Recommendation

What review, monitoring, investigation or action is suggested?

e.g. Clean and monitor, specialist structural review.

Good survey wording

Using cautious, evidence-led vocabulary helps communicate professional assessments accurately and avoids premature or unsupported diagnoses.

Cautious Wording to Use

  • observed, recorded, visible: Focuses on factual direct sight
  • consistent with, may indicate: Expresses interpretation without absolute certainty
  • possible, probable, subject to confirmation: Qualifies uncertainty
  • requires further investigation: Places limits on survey scope
  • monitor, review: Identifies proportionate lower-impact response
  • specialist assessment recommended: Respects specialist boundaries

Use Carefully and with Evidence

  • failure: Implies total structural or material breakdown
  • urgent, dangerous: Implies immediate hazard; justify clearly
  • active decay: Requires proof of progressive deterioration
  • bronze disease: A specific chemical reaction; require tests to confirm
  • structural: Implies load-bearing stability risks; specify details
  • irreversible, beyond repair: Heavy claims; require exhaustive evidence

Common recording mistakes

Mistake: Recording diagnosis as observation
Example: "Bronze disease to sculpture."
Better: "Green corrosion products were observed on the bronze surface. Chloride-induced corrosion is possible but not confirmed by this survey."
Mistake: Recording recommendation without evidence
Example: "Replace fixing."
Better: "Fixing appears loose at the lower bracket. Review fixing stability and confirm repair approach before specifying replacement."
Mistake: Recording vague location
Example: "Crack in stone."
Better: "Vertical crack recorded on the lower left section of the limestone plinth."
Mistake: Combining several conditions unclearly
Example: "Wall is damp and dirty and damaged."
Better: "Moisture staining and surface soiling were recorded on the lower wall. Localised surface loss is visible at the base."

Structured recording examples

Example 1: Metalwork

Raw note: "Rust on gate."
ObservationOrange-brown corrosion products were recorded on the lower hinge plate of the west gate leaf.
InterpretationThe corrosion appears localised around the fixing area.
Possible causeMoisture retention and coating breakdown may be contributing factors.
RiskContinued corrosion may reduce fixing performance if left unmanaged.
RecommendationReview fixing condition, record with close-up photography and consider targeted conservation repair specification.

Example 2: Stone

Raw note: "White powder on stone."
ObservationA white powdery deposit was recorded below the joint on the limestone surface.
InterpretationThe deposit is consistent with efflorescence.
Possible causeSalt movement may be a contributing mechanism, subject to confirmation.
RiskOngoing moisture and salt cycling may contribute to surface deterioration.
RecommendationMonitor moisture source, record extent photographically and consider salt analysis if deterioration progresses.

Example 3: Bronze

Raw note: "Bronze disease."
ObservationGreen corrosion products were observed on recessed areas of the bronze surface.
InterpretationThe corrosion appears visually active in localised areas.
Possible causeChloride-induced corrosion cannot be confirmed without appropriate testing.
RiskIf active corrosion is confirmed, progressive surface loss may occur.
RecommendationRecord location, photograph detail areas and seek specialist assessment before specifying treatment.

Example 4: Timber

Raw note: "Rotten timber."
ObservationSoftened timber and local surface loss were recorded at the base of the post.
InterpretationThe condition may be consistent with moisture-related timber decay.
Possible causePersistent wetting at ground level may be contributing.
RiskFurther deterioration could reduce local section strength.
RecommendationCheck moisture exposure, review structural role and seek specialist timber assessment where required.

Example 5: Stained Glass

Raw note: "Window damaged."
ObservationCracked glass and deformation of the lead came were recorded in the lower right panel.
InterpretationThe panel appears locally vulnerable to further movement.
Possible causePrevious movement, impact or lead fatigue may be contributing factors.
RiskFurther distortion could increase risk of glass loss.
RecommendationRecord panel condition photographically and seek specialist stained-glass conservation advice before intervention.

Checklist before marking for report

Before marking an observation to be included in a final conservation report, verify that it meets the following clarity and accuracy checks:

  • Is the location clear? (e.g. "lower left section of limestone plinth" rather than just "on the plinth")
  • Is the material recorded where known? (e.g. limestone, cast iron, lead came, softwood)
  • Is the visible condition described? (e.g. orange-brown corrosion, white powdery deposits, softened timber)
  • Is interpretation separated from observation? (What is seen vs what is inferred)
  • Is the possible cause clearly uncertain unless confirmed? (Use terms like "may indicate", "possible cause")
  • Is the risk proportionate? (Avoid overstating stability risks unless structural advice has been sought)
  • Is the recommendation supported by evidence? (Recommendations should match identified risks)
  • Is photographic evidence linked where possible? (Direct visual evidence to support statements)
  • Is condition grade recorded if required? (Consistent categorization according to survey metadata specs)
  • Are specialist limitations stated where needed? (Declare boundaries of access, visibility, or testing methods)
Related tools

This guide is for information purposes only. Professional conservation surveys require site-specific evaluation, evidence-based assessment and professional judgement.