Commissioning and Pre-Startup.
Commissioning works off the as-installed reality, not the IFC drawings construction worked from. Late field changes, mismatched tag plates, and instruments swapped mid-build all have to reconcile against the master tag list before turnover.
Three drawings included on a new account.
P&ID extraction during commissioning.
Commissioning-phase documents from as-built P&IDs. Loop calibration tracking, SIS proof-test scope, DCS and PLC point list reconciliation, PSSR documentation.
What Commissioning produces.
- Loop calibration report per instrument tag
- Functional test record per interlock and per alarm
- SIS proof test record with as-found, as-left values
- Pre-startup safety review documentation referencing the tag list
- Master point list reconciliation against the DCS and PLC live tag table
- Punch list closure tracker per tag
Where Tagsight fits.
- Re-extracts the as-built drawing set so the commissioning team has a master tag list that matches as-installed reality, not the issued-for-construction snapshot
- Reconciles the extracted instrument index against the DCS and PLC live tag table to surface tag drift before pre-startup safety review
- SIS instrument scope issued on its own for the proof-test program
- Every row passes through your review before it reaches the master point list
- Workspace-scoped revisions hold the as-built baseline that operations inherits at handover
Common challenges.
- DCS-side and drawing-side tag lists diverge during construction. Without reconciliation, commissioning starts with a tag mismatch that cascades into every functional test
- SIS proof-test scope drifts from the LOPA documentation when the instrument index is rebuilt by hand. The proof-test program has to defend its scope against the original LOPA
- Punch list items get tracked in three separate systems, construction, commissioning, vendor without a shared tag spine. Each system has its own definition of what is closed
- As-built capture at commissioning close-out repeats every prior hand transcription if the extraction is not in place
- Pre-startup safety review, PSSR references documents that all should agree. The I/O list, instrument index, line list, and DCS point list should be the same dataset in different formats
- Operations inherits whatever the commissioning team hands over. A clean structured dataset at handover avoids the operations team rebuilding it themselves in year one
Common questions
How does Tagsight help with DCS and PLC point list reconciliation.
The extracted instrument index can be exported as TIA Portal XML, Rockwell L5X, or generic CSV and diffed against the live point list pulled from the controller. Tags-on-drawing-not-in-DCS and tags-in-DCS-not-on-drawing surface as a reconciliation worksheet.
Does the SIS subset feed the IEC 61511 proof-test program.
The SIS instrument scope filters out by tag prefix and signal class. Proof-test interval, voting logic, and target SIL still come from the SRS and LOPA documents, but the instrument tag spine is automatic.
What if a loop calibration finds an instrument that is not on the drawing.
The instrument is added to the workspace through the mark-missed workflow, which captures the tag and its place on the original drawing. The next extraction run will pick up the new instrument from the redlined drawing.
Use it through Commissioning.
Pre-startup safety review and the IEC 61511 proof-test program both require the instrument index to reflect as-installed reality, not the IFC snapshot. Reconcile the extracted as-built tag list against the live DCS and PLC point tables before the PSSR clock starts.
Three drawings included on a new account.