Most leakage survey work leaves nothing behind. When every fitting checked is recorded, located and timed, that work becomes evidence a water company can report, defend and plan with.
Ask a water company what its leakage teams achieved last month and the answer comes back as a number: leaks found and repaired. It is a fair measure. It is also a small part of the work.
A survey technician spends most of the day checking hydrants, valves and meters that turn out to be sound. Each check takes skill and time, and each one is paid for. In traditional leak detection, very little of it is written down. The leak gets a job number. The fittings that passed leave no trace.
That gap is easy to overlook while the leak count is the only measure anyone asks for. It is harder to overlook once reporting, asset and finance teams need to show how a figure was reached, not just what it is.
What a leak count cannot tell you
A leak count says what was found. It does not say what was checked, whether a district was surveyed in full, or which fittings could not be reached. It cannot show that a quiet month reflects a sound network rather than thinner coverage. And it gives the people planning renewal very little to work with, because it records failures and nothing else.
The work behind the number is taken on trust. The survey was done, the coverage was good, and the fittings that passed are assumed to be fine. That may all be true. It is still trust rather than evidence.
What an auditable record contains
An auditable survey record treats every check as evidence. Each acoustic sample is tied to the fitting it was taken from, located, timed and given a quality grade. Analysts review the recordings and grade the ones worth investigating as Points of Interest. Experienced technicians then confirm and pinpoint those before a repair is raised. Every other check stays on the record as a fitting checked, with no leak found at the time of survey.
- 01Sample and context recordedAn acoustic sample is recorded at the fitting, together with its context: chamber condition, asset type, operational condition, connection type (household, non-household, void, illegal or disconnected) and any health and safety considerations.
- 02Located and timedEach sample is tied to its fitting, location and time, and quality graded.
- 03Points of Interest gradedAnalysts review the recordings and grade the ones worth investigating.
- 04Confirmed in the fieldExperienced technicians confirm and pinpoint before a repair is raised.
- 05Kept on recordEvery other check stays on file as a fitting checked, with no leak found.
That gives a water company four things a leak count cannot.
It shows what was done
Coverage can be checked against the network rather than assumed. Overlaying repeat surveys shows whether every part of a district was reached, and fittings that could not be accessed are recorded rather than left blank.
It keeps confidence levels honest
A suspected leak, a confirmed finding and a condition observation are recorded separately, so each decision rests on the right level of certainty.
It builds over time
Repeat surveys of the same areas show where leaks recur and how often intervention is needed. That history points to the mains and districts most in need of attention, which is the evidence renewal planning depends on.
It serves more than the leakage team
The same visit can record fitting condition and access, unregistered connections and other observations that matter to asset planning, water quality and compliance teams.
Who the record is for
The same survey answers different questions for different people. For those who own regulatory reporting, asset planning and investment cases, it is a verified record of the network that they can report, defend and plan with. For leakage operations leads, it shows coverage and consistency across teams and districts, so gaps in delivery are visible while there is still time to act on them. For leakage managers, nothing is lost: the leaks are still found and confirmed, with proof of every fitting checked along the way.
That last point matters. Leakage managers are judged on leak finds, and a record that added paperwork to every survey would be a hard sell. A record created by the survey itself, as each sample is taken, adds evidence without a separate reporting exercise.
What it looks like at scale
The approach already runs at volume. In August 2026, our teams recorded more than 215,000 survey samples across five water company areas. Almost all of them were fittings with no leak present. Under traditional detection, that work would have left no record. Here, every check is located, timed and kept.
Recording the work does not come at the expense of finding leaks. On one large UK programme in the first quarter of 2026/27, leak finds ran 41% above target, and water saved, measured in megalitres a day, ran 34% above target. The cost of each megalitre a day saved came in 28% below our own planning benchmark.
What a record does not do
The limits matter too. A survey record describes what was inspected and the conditions found at the time. It does not guarantee that no leak exists anywhere, and it does not establish the structural condition of every asset. What it does is replace an assumption with evidence, and make the gaps visible instead of hiding them.
From activity to evidence
Most leakage reporting today states what was repaired and estimates the rest. With a full survey record, a water company can state what was checked and evidence the rest. Next year’s programme can then be built on what the network showed, not on last year’s spend.
Aqualogic InSight
Every fitting checked. Every check recorded.
That is the approach behind Aqualogic InSight. Every fitting checked is recorded, located and timed, so water companies get evidence of network condition as well as the confirmed leaks.
