PSC Inspection Review and Detention Assessment

RightShip records and processes Port State Control (PSC) Inspection outcomes as reported by the relevant inspecting authorities. Deficiencies and detentions are captured as issued and, when submitted for close out review, are subject to a structured and documented review process. This includes manual assessment of each deficiency by a marine Subject Matter Expert to support consistency, accuracy, and appropriate classification within the RightShip Platform. 

Since 20 August 2025, RightShip has applied a PSC Inspection deficiency severity framework, categorising deficiencies into low, medium, and high severity. This approach supports a more proportionate and risk‑based treatment of PSC Inspection outcomes, with lower‑severity deficiencies having a correspondingly significantly reduced influence on vessel Safety Scores and company DOC Subscores.

Treatment of PSC Detentions - Consistency and Global Application

RightShip recognises that PSC Detentions can arise in a range of operational and regulatory contexts and that, in some cases, the circumstances surrounding a detention may require further verification. 

RightShip applies its PSC Inspection review and scoring processes consistently across the world fleet. Deficiencies and detentions are not selectively excluded or adjusted based on flag, geography, or trading area. This standardised global treatment underpins the integrity, transparency, and comparability of RightShip’s safety and risk assessments. 

RightShip does, however, recognise that PSC Inspection activity can vary over time across regions, vessel segments, and inspection regimes. Such variation reflects the targeting approaches and priorities of individual PSC Authorities and MoUs, which may include heightened focus on particular vessel types or issues. Inspection outcomes therefore may reflect both vessel condition and prevailing inspection emphasis at a given time. 

Over the longer term, sustained operational performance, effective close out of deficiencies, and robust root cause identification—supported by appropriate corrective and preventative actions—are reflected within RightShip’s scoring and analytics. 

Detention Appeals, Amendments, and Score Impact Revisions 

Where PSC Inspection outcomes are formally amended, withdrawn, or overturned by the issuing PSC Authority, MoU, or through a recognised appeal process (including Flag State involvement), RightShip updates its records to reflect the verified revised outcome. 

In particular: 

• Successful detention appeals or formal outcome amendments result in the adjustment of associated impacts on vessel Safety Score and company DOC Subscore 
• Historic records are corrected to ensure vessel and company performance history accurately reflects the validated PSC Inspection outcome 

Where a vessel operator considers that a PSC detention or inspection outcome is unjust or factually incorrect, they are encouraged to take the following steps: 

1. Submit a formal appeal or clarification request through the vessel’s Flag State Administration or the relevant PSC Authority/MoU, supported by comprehensive, objective, and contemporaneous evidence. 
2. Provide RightShip with the full appeal submission, together with all supporting documentation submitted to the Flag State or PSC Authority/MoU, including any acknowledgements or interim correspondence where available.
3. Submit a detailed PSC Inspection close out via the platform, setting out: 

• • Clear explanation of the circumstances surrounding the detention or deficiency
  • A structured root cause analysis, where applicable
  • Defined corrective actions and preventative measures
  • Supporting objective evidence that aligns with and substantiates the explanation provided 

For appeal submissions to be considered, the quality of supporting evidence is critical. Evidence should be clear, objective, contemporaneous, and difficult to refute, with particular emphasis on robust “as‑found” records. This may include time‑stamped photographs or videos, calibrated instrument readings, certification or test records, or other verifiable documentation that demonstrates the vessel’s condition or operational status at the time of inspection. Evidence that is retrospective, subjective, or unsupported by factual records is unlikely to carry sufficient weight. 

RightShip will consider submissions holistically as part of the PSC Inspection close out review process. Where inspection outcomes are subsequently amended or formally overturned by the issuing authority, RightShip’s records will be updated accordingly to ensure vessel level and DOC company level performance assessments remain accurate, fair, and evidence based. 

Use of Operator‑Provided Context 

RightShip recognises the value of operator‑provided context when assessing PSC Inspection outcomes, particularly in complex or contested cases. High‑quality root cause analyses, corrective actions, preventative measures, and supporting objective evidence submitted through the platform contribute to a more balanced and transparent assessment of performance over time. Detailed guidance is available in Submitting a Good PSC Close‑Out Report. 

Methodology Safeguards 

In addition to individual inspection review, RightShip applies port‑averaging logic within its methodology. This mechanism helps moderate the influence of short‑term or localised inspection variability where there is no indication of sustained performance change, supporting a fairer longitudinal view of risk. 

Summary 

• PSC Inspections are recorded as reported by issuing authorities 
• All deficiencies and detentions undergo manual expert review 
• Severity grading supports proportionate Safety Score and DOC Subscore impacts 
• Verified appeals and amended outcomes remove associated Safety Score and DOC Subscore 
• Operator‑provided RCAs and evidence are actively considered 
• Port‑averaging logic moderates short‑term regional inspection variability