Well, for what it's worth (** but subject to my next comment below), I would say that you (or someone) probably should be asked to examine the statistical adequacy of any sampling that is utilised. You are effectively using your experience to second guess what a proper statistical examination would determine, and you may or may not get the same answer.Just to (hopefully) clarify this, we are not being asked to carry out a statistical analysis to determine what and how much of the installation to sample. ... We inspect the installation and examine records of installation work and previous inspections. We then apply our experience to decide whether or not a sample is acceptable.
** As I said to eric, that is potentially fine. If, for example, EICRs are undertaken every year and the selection of circuits to examine on each occasion is organised such that, say, every circuit will be examined within any 5-year period, then, if a 5-year interval between I&T is considered adequate, then that would obviously be fine.Eric has correctly pointed out that a number of consecutive inspections will cover the full installation.
However, that's different from what you appeared to be saying. I thought you said that if no work had been undertaken on a particular circuit since it had undergone prior inspection and testing (with satisfactory results), then it did not need to be looked at in the current EICR. If that were the case, a circuit which never had any work done on it could go uninspected for decades. Perhaps I misunderstood you.
I'm also a bit confused. I didn't query your "capability to read records and visually inspect an installation", but merely pointed out that the practice you appeared to be describing could miss 'unexpected and unpredictable' spontaneous faults, and nor did I say anything about my experience of EICRs (which is zero, unless you count 'informal' examinations of electrical installations). For what it's worth, what I have a lot of experience of is sampling.I'm confused now. After querying whether we have the capability to read records and visually inspect an installation, you now state that (based on your experience) that EICRS in general are of little benefit.
What I was saying was essentially that 'if a job is worth doing, it's worth doing properly'. There could, as I implied, be discussion about to the extent to which EICRs prevent deaths and serious injuries (which are already extremely rare events). However, since we have decided that they are worthwhile (presumably to reduce those deaths and injuries), it would seem a little surprising if the procedures did not seek to prevent injuries/deaths due to causes which, on the basis of electricians' experience, were judged to be unlikely to occur.
Kind Regards, John