Our Methodology

How a remote verification letter actually works — what we verify against, the evidence protocol behind every case, and the quality controls that decide whether a letter is issued.

Licensed PE review — every case Engineer-scoped evidence, case by case GPS + timestamp verified photos Cryptographically hashed records Furnished under the code’s acceptance-of-reports provisions

What we verify against — scoped per case

There is no single standard for after-the-fact work: a missed rough-in is judged against the permitted plans and the code edition on the permit; a bearing-wall alteration against the load path the structure actually needs; an as-built shed against accepted practice and the county’s own request. So the first engineering act on every case is scoping: the engineer decides what has to be proven, what evidence can prove it, and whether that evidence can exist in photographs at all. The photo checklist your case carries was written for your case — it is not a generic template.

That is also where we say no. Work sealed behind finishes with no records and no access cannot be certified from photographs by anyone, and a letter that pretended otherwise would not survive the building official’s desk. When that is the situation, we tell you before you pay — and talk about inspection openings, a site visit, or whether the letter you were asked for is the right instrument at all.

Our remote evidence protocol is informed by the recommended practices published for remote inspections by the International Code Council and the National Fire Protection Association (see References). Those publications address live-video inspections by code officials; we adapted their core principles — verified location, directed capture, qualified review, documented records, and an unconditional path back to an on-site visit — into an asynchronous, evidence-preserving protocol. The section below maps each requirement to the specific mechanism in our process that satisfies it.

The requirements we follow — and how we meet each one

A letter like this only has value if it stands on the provisions the building department itself operates under. These are the requirements our process is built around, mapped to what we actually do on every case.

The building code

Required inspectionsFBC Building §110 / FBC Residential R109 — IBC §110 / IRC R109 in model-code states, as adopted by the AHJ

These are the sections that made your problem a problem: the code lists the inspections that must occur before work is concealed. Every case starts by identifying, from the permit record, exactly which required inspection or approval is at issue — and the letter addresses that inspection by name, against the code edition on the permit, not a generic checklist.

Acceptance of reports of approved individualsFBC Building §110.4 / FBC Residential R109.2 (and their IBC/IRC counterparts)

This is the provision our letters are furnished under: the building official is authorized to accept reports from approved agencies or individuals in satisfaction of an inspection requirement. Each letter cites the applicable section for the jurisdiction’s adopted edition and is written to give the official what that provision contemplates — a signed, sealed report from a licensed professional stating what was verified, how, and on what evidence. Acceptance always rests with the building official. We say that plainly, and where a jurisdiction’s practice is unfamiliar to us, we verify locally before you pay.

Licensed engineering practiceThe engineering-practice act and board rules of the property’s state

Every letter is personally reviewed, signed, and sealed by a Professional Engineer licensed in the property’s state, in accordance with that state’s rules on sealing engineering documents — including the rule that matters most here: an engineer may only seal work within their competence, supported by evidence they can stand behind.

Remote-inspection practice standards

The ICC’s Recommended Practices for Remote Virtual Inspections (2020) and the NFPA’s Conducting Remote Video Inspections (2018) set out what a remote inspection must get right. Here is each principle, and the mechanism in our system that implements it:

Verified location and subjectICC RVI / NFPA: confirm the inspection is of the actual permitted property

GPS coordinates and camera timestamps are extracted from every photo and preserved before upload, the capture session records its starting location, and the engineer independently back-checks the property against county appraiser data, GIS parcels, aerials, and permit records — so the evidence is tied to the address by more than the sender’s word.

Capture directed by the reviewing professionalICC RVI: the inspector, not the contractor, controls what is viewed

The engineer writes the shot list for each case before a single photo is taken — which views, close-ups, measurements, and documents, each tied to a sentence the letter must support. The guided app enforces that list: submission stays locked until every required item is complete, and the engineer can reopen any item for retakes with specific instructions.

Qualified reviewerICC RVI / NFPA: review by personnel qualified for the work inspected

A licensed Professional Engineer personally reviews every photo and document on every case. No software decides anything — any drafting tools we use internally propose; the engineer disposes.

Documented, tamper-evident recordsICC RVI / NFPA: the inspection record must be preserved and reliable

The pre-session attestation is stored write-once with a SHA-256 fingerprint of the exact text signed; photo metadata is preserved as captured; the complete case file — evidence, attestations, review history, and the sealed letter — is retained for a minimum of two years.

A path back to on-site inspectionICC RVI / NFPA: remote review must never be forced where it doesn’t fit

The engineer retains the unconditional right to require inspection openings or an on-site visit, or to decline and refund, wherever the governing question cannot be answered responsibly from photographic evidence. That judgment is made per case — and when the answer is no, we say so before you pay.

Code section numbers above follow the Florida Building Code and the I-Codes; your jurisdiction’s adopted edition and local amendments govern, and each letter cites the edition applicable to the subject permit. The ICC and NFPA publications are practice recommendations for code officials that informed our protocol design — see the note under References.

The evidence protocol

Signed pre-session agreement

Before the first photo, the photographer signs a recorded agreement: the photos are of the subject property, taken during this session, unaltered, and captured safely. The agreement is stored write-once with a cryptographic fingerprint (SHA-256) of the exact text signed, the signer's name, timestamp, and starting location.

Directed capture — the engineer's shot list

The photographer doesn’t decide what to photograph — the engineer already has. For every case, the engineer writes the shot list: which views, which close-ups, which measurements, and which documents, each tied to the specific thing the letter must be able to say. The guided app walks that list item by item, in plain language, and submission is locked until every required item is complete. When one of our own inspectors captures instead of the client, the same app carries the engineer’s field instructions.

Location and time verification on every photo

Each photo's camera timestamp and GPS coordinates are extracted and preserved before upload, with device geolocation as a fallback — so the record shows not just what was photographed, but where and when. This adapts the location-verification practices recommended for remote inspections to a per-photo, machine-verifiable form.

Independent corroboration — we don't rely only on what you send

The engineer runs an independent back-check of every property using publicly available records: county property appraiser data, GIS parcel maps and county aerials, historical satellite and street-level imagery, online listing photos, and building-permit records where available. This cross-checks the property, the permit history, and the timeline against the submitted photos and documents. Permit records, plans, and prior inspection results you upload are read alongside the photographs, not filed and forgotten.

Licensed engineer review — the gate

A licensed Professional Engineer personally reviews every photo against a written triage checklist, alongside the case documents and the independent research above — judgment drawn from thousands of structural and property inspections across his career, in every form from crawlspaces to post-storm forensics. Nothing about this step is automated, and no software decides anything: any drafting tools we use internally propose; the licensed engineer disposes. No letter is issued until the engineer can support every sentence in it.

Retakes, or escalation to a site visit

If any photo is unclear or incomplete, the engineer reopens exactly those items with specific instructions — the photographer's link resumes where they left off. And the engineer retains the unconditional right to require an on-site visit, or to decline and refund, where the property cannot be responsibly certified from photographic evidence. Conditions that trigger escalation include concealed work with no contemporaneous records, visible distress or settlement, evidence that contradicts the reported history, and any case where the governing question simply cannot be answered from what a camera can reach.

Sealed letter and durable records

The letter is reviewed, signed, and sealed by the licensed engineer, states its methodology and scope plainly, and is delivered with a durable download link. The complete case file — photos with their metadata, the signed agreement, the review history, and the sealed letter — is retained for a minimum of two years.

Quality control, honestly stated

Remote review is a methodology choice with real advantages — the evidence is timestamped, geolocated, and permanently reviewable, which a drive-by site visit is not — and real limits, which our letters state rather than hide. Each letter addresses the observed condition and the documented record for the specific work evaluated; it is not a structural design, a plan review, a home inspection, or a warranty of workmanship or future performance. We also state what we could not see: work concealed behind finishes is identified as concealed, and where the opinion relies on contractor photographs or reported inspection results rather than direct observation, the letter says so in as many words. Where the evidence isn’t enough to certify responsibly, we say so — and either visit the site or refund in full.

References

The permit record, approved plans, and the jurisdiction’s stated requirements for the subject work — the case-specific basis every letter identifies.
The applicable building code edition as adopted by the authority having jurisdiction — in particular its required-inspections provisions (FBC Building §110 / FBC Residential R109; IBC §110 / IRC R109) and the building official’s acceptance of reports of approved individuals (FBC Building §110.4 / FBC Residential R109.2, and their model-code counterparts).
International Code Council, Recommended Practices for Remote Virtual Inspections (RVI), First Printing, May 2020.
National Fire Protection Association, Building Code Development Committee, Conducting Remote Video Inspections, August 2018.

The ICC and NFPA publications are referenced as sources that informed the design of our protocol. We are an independent engineering practice, not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the ICC or the NFPA.

Ready when you are

Scoped and quoted per case · typically 1–2 business days after your photos are in · if we can’t help, we say so before you pay.

Tell us what you need →