Check both the inspection result and the report’s submission stage when reading a DC Tertius file. The outcome of an event is one question; which document reached the agency is another. Start with the inspection reference and dated report already supplied to you.
Keep the result and the document trail separate
The official Tertius FAQ lists Approved, Partially Approved, Cancelled, Rescheduled and Failed, and says non-approved events still require a report. For Special Inspection Agencies, it identifies an official inspection-report PDF. The assigned PIC or MCP reviewer performs quality assurance before final submission to DOB.
A cancelled or rescheduled entry should not be rewritten as a failed finding. Likewise, a partial outcome needs its scope: read which work the document addresses rather than extending the label to every inspection under the permit. Keep the exact event language with the record that explains it.
| Question to answer | Evidence to compare |
|---|---|
| What happened at this event? | Its identifier, date, inspection type and stated outcome. |
| Which report describes it? | The document’s reference, scope, version and attachments. |
| What happened to that document? | Submission or review evidence tied to that same version. |
| What happened afterward? | A separately identified later event or response, if present. |
Do not combine those answers into one status column. A document can describe an earlier event even when it was uploaded later. A notification may concern the next step without supplying its result. Preserve the document date and event date separately when both appear.
A fictional partial-result file has two unresolved links
Imagine a fictional folder containing an event marked Partially Approved, a provider’s working checklist and a PDF named final. An email says review is pending. The checklist is marked complete, but no record connects that note to the pending review.
First identify what each item is. A provider’s completion note describes that provider’s entry; it is not automatically the agency’s determination. A filename chosen by its sender does not establish the document’s submission stage. Keep the email and PDF together so the uncertainty is visible.
Next compare their references. Suppose the PDF names a different inspection type under the same permit. It may be a valid report for another event, but it does not explain the partial outcome you started with. Request the copy associated with that earlier inspection rather than assuming all documents under one permit are interchangeable.
If the correct report arrives, retain the version you received and the accompanying message. Ask which existing record establishes what happened to that version after review. Do not fill the gap by renaming the file or interpreting the provider’s checklist as the missing response.
A later favorable event may answer a different question. Link it to the earlier one only where the records supply that relationship; nearby dates alone are insufficient. This leaves a precise research conclusion: the original outcome is documented, while the later document stage or follow-up remains unconfirmed.
Recover the exact missing report through authorized access
The FAQ describes customer reports in the account’s Projects view and project-location or permit-number inputs within that account workflow. These are documented instructions, not an anonymous public history search demonstrated here. Use existing authorized access rather than creating an inspection transaction to investigate old records.
If the report or stage is unclear, use the FAQ’s Contact Us support entry. Identify the existing project or permit, the inspection type and date, and the particular copy or submission evidence missing. These are suggested identifying details, not verified support-form fields or a promise that a copy will be supplied.
Make the request narrow enough to distinguish these problems:
- You have an event summary but no document explaining its outcome.
- You have a working sheet but need the official report associated with the event.
- You have the report but cannot connect it to the later submission or response.
- You have a newer report whose identifier or inspection type does not match the older event.
Include the reference as printed, even if you suspect it is wrong, and explain the discrepancy separately. If a response identifies another version, preserve that explanation instead of silently replacing the earlier reference. The result is a traceable correction rather than a reconstructed story.
State what the available file still cannot establish
No anonymous report index, historical start year, legacy archive or retention period was verified. An unavailable account view does not prove that an inspection never occurred. For older material, identify the exact item and approximate period before asking where it is held.
When property or permit identities conflict, the DC square-and-lot records guide addresses that separate problem; its land-record identifiers are not verified Tertius inputs. If the question is whole-permit completion, use the final-inspection status guide rather than transferring one event’s label to the permit.
A report or submission does not prove completion of corrections, passage of a later inspection, occupancy approval or present safety. No account, project, inspection, PDF, form or support request was accessed for this guide; the official FAQ was reviewed as documentation.
Last checked October 6, 2026 (2026-10-06 UTC).