Arc Flash FilesReview · label-ppe
Label & PPE Boundary Review
Cross-check what your labels say against what your study says.
Checks label content completeness, unit/method consistency, and — when you also submit the study — whether label values match study output. The cross-check against the study is the highest-value finding this engine produces.
What this product is for
Labels are where an arc flash study stops being a document and starts being a safety control. They are also where studies most often drift out of sync with reality: a study gets revised, a transformer gets replaced, a labeling vendor transcribes a table by hand, and nothing in the process forces the sticker on the gear to agree with the study in the file cabinet. This product checks both halves. It reviews your labels or label schedule for content completeness, unit and method consistency, and coverage — and when you also upload the study the labels came from, it cross-checks the printed values against the study output. That cross-check is the highest-value finding this product produces, and it is the reason to submit both documents rather than labels alone.
What the 33-point checklist covers
33 discrete checks across 8 areas. Applies to: Equipment arc flash labels, label schedules, boundary tables, PPE assignment tables.
- Label content completeness
- Calculation method disclosure
- PPE assignment
- Maintenance-mode and reduced-energy settings
- Label coverage across equipment
- Study-to-label cross-check
- Physical durability and placement
- Labeling program documentation
Grounded in an owner-authored review checklist. Every finding includes its source page and, where a code citation applies, the section it is based on — never from memory.
What this explicitly does not do
- Determining correct PPE for a specific task
- Recalculating incident energy or boundaries
- Approving a labeling program
These are structural limits on the product, not a description of effort. Absence of a finding is never evidence of compliance.
A finding in this product's format
Label incident energy does not match study output for the same bus
The label schedule reports an incident energy for this bus that differs from the value in the submitted study for the bus of the same designation. One of the two documents is stale, the bus designations do not refer to the same equipment, or a working distance differs between them. Reconcile before these labels are applied — a label that understates incident energy drives PPE selection downward.
Illustrative and redacted. Not real customer data. See full sample reports →
Turnaround
- Automated release: Typically 1 business day, plus review time.
What you'll upload
- Labels (PDF photos or exported label sheets) (required)
- Local code amendments (optional PDF) (optional)
Your AHJ's amendments only — not the full code edition. Without them, findings are checked against the general requirements of the edition you selected.
- Arc flash study, for the label-to-study cross-check (optional PDF) (optional)
Submitting your study lets this review flag any label value that disagrees with the study output — the highest-value check this engine runs.
If this document needs more than a preliminary screening, the same firm offers a stamped engineering review by a licensed P.E.(opens in a new tab, external site) directly. That work is engaged separately from this Service — buying a review here does not create that engagement.
Label & PPE Boundary Review — common questions
- What is the study-to-label cross-check, and why does it need two uploads?
- It is a direct comparison of what each label says against what the study says for the same piece of equipment — incident energy, working distance, boundary, and PPE. It is the single most valuable thing this product does, and it is only possible when both documents are in hand. Submit labels alone and you still get the content, method, coverage, and consistency checks; you do not get the cross-check.
- Will this tell me what PPE my technicians should wear?
- No, and it will not do so even if asked. Determining PPE for a specific task is a decision that belongs to the employer and the qualified person doing the work, informed by the study and the task. This review checks whether the labels are complete, internally consistent, and consistent with the study behind them.
- Who authored the checks?
- Jay R. Prigmore II, Ph.D., P.E. — a Ph.D. electrical power engineer and voting member of the IEEE 1584 arc flash working group. The checklist is original prose. No NFPA 70E, NFPA 70, or IEEE 1584 text is reproduced in it or bundled into the platform; any code citation in your report comes from a document you uploaded yourself.
- How is this priced for a whole facility?
- By label count, in published tiers, with the price shown and locked before you upload anything. Above the top tier there is a flat per-label overage rate, also published. There is no quote step and no sales call.
- Does a clean report mean my labeling program is compliant?
- No. This is an automated preliminary screening, not an approval of a labeling program and not a compliance determination. Absence of a finding means nothing in the submitted documents triggered a check — it is not evidence of compliance. The Engineer of Record verifies every finding.