A crack appeared after off-season storage. How do we distinguish discovery date from failure date?

Record the discovery date separately from the last confirmed condition. Unless dated evidence narrows the interval, the crack's formation time remains uncertain. Review storage, handling and earlier service records without treating the first sighting as proof that storage caused the damage or that the crack developed then.

Record discovery date separately from last confirmed good inspection

State when, where and by whom the feature was first observed. Include photographs showing the whole part and the affected position. If a qualified inspector has confirmed a crack, identify that finding and date. If the feature is only suspected from appearance, preserve that distinction until it is examined.

Find the latest record that actually resolves the same location. An end-of-season checklist marked “stored” does not necessarily establish that every surface was inspected. An overall photograph may show the blade without showing a fine feature. Describe the last confirmed condition only as strongly as the evidence allows, leaving an open interval when necessary.

The storage and handling guide provides broad planning background. This discussion addresses a narrower reporting problem: keeping the time of discovery from becoming an unsupported failure date in the supplier or maintenance record.

Review handling, storage and previous service records

Build a chronology from removal through storage to discovery. Include known movement, support arrangements, packaging changes and any maintenance, along with the preceding service history. Record actual observations of storage conditions rather than reconstructing a whole season from how the storage area looks today. Mark missing periods as unknown.

Keep reported handling events separate from conclusions about their effects. A documented drop or movement belongs in the chronology, but its presence does not automatically explain the observed feature. Equally, no recorded event does not prove that none occurred. The question is what the available evidence can establish.

Use the applicable equipment instructions for safe inspection and any return-to-service decision. Do not flex, heat or otherwise stress a suspect part to determine whether the crack is old. Ask the receiving investigator what surfaces and records should be preserved before any cleaning or corrective work takes place.

Present the timing as uncertain unless contemporaneous evidence narrows it

Write the report using explicit timing language: first observed on a stated date, last detailed inspection on another date, formation interval unresolved. Include earlier photographs even when they cannot rule out a small crack; their limitations are still useful. Avoid phrases such as “storage failure” unless a qualified conclusion actually supports that classification.

If joining or material history is relevant, request a specialist review with the part, lot and available production records. CERATIZIT's joining reference offers context for technical questions, not a means of dating a crack from appearance. A photograph alone cannot supply the missing chronology or distinguish every possible contribution.

For an enquiry about replacement wear parts, identify whether the original will be retained for investigation and what the maintenance authority has decided. The equipment can be made safe while the timing question remains open. Preserve the final distinction between confirmed condition, possible explanations and any unresolved period rather than simplifying it for the purchase file.