TMH-22 context for a verifiable data handover

Connect the delivery to its intended use

TMH-22 provides road asset management context. Its information and transfer requirements help explain why exchange formats, network references and data integrity matter to the receiving organisation. TMH-18 supplies exchange definitions; a platform validation workflow provides evidence about selected checks and review decisions.

Record which files were expected, the source edition, the network context and the receiving authority’s acceptance requirements. Distinguish source observations, processed records and summaries before comparing totals.

Reconcile export, receipt and import

Section D.5.12 of the March 2013 draft discusses integrity checks including record counts, possible duplicates and matching key fields. Count comparable records at each stage and keep rejected or deliberately excluded records visible. A matching total alone can hide different records.

Compare file hashes where identical bytes are expected. When an import transforms or aggregates data, retain the transformation and reconcile the outputs by appropriate keys and calculations. A certificate for the received file does not by itself certify a later transformed dataset.

State what the evidence covers

TMH18 Validator is a file-validation and review service. Its certificate and audit evidence do not establish full TMH-22 compliance, asset valuation, investment planning or a complete RAMS. Those activities require their own systems, evidence and engineering decisions.

Use the handover guide and downloadable working templates to document receipt, exceptions and acceptance. Keep unresolved limitations alongside the data so the next engineer can reproduce the decision.

Sources and scope

• COTO TMH-22: Road Asset Management ManualMarch 2013 draft (V8b source filename). §D.5.2: information requirements and data transfer.
• COTO TMH-22: data integrityMarch 2013 draft (V8b source filename). §D.5.12, printed pages D-21–D-22: record counts, duplicates and matching key fields.

The cited sources describe their own requirements. Practical checklists and examples do not replace the receiving authority’s adopted profile. Platform review and certification are described in the product documentation.