A gas utility supplier finds a published leak count and writes, “Your DIMP program needs our detector.” That sentence crosses two evidence gaps. The count does not explain why the leaks occurred, and a public report does not expose the operator’s full distribution integrity management program. The better first step is to identify what PHMSA requires and what the public record can actually show.
PHMSA’s July 2026 DIMP advisory bulletin addresses risk evaluations, high-risk infrastructure, interacting threats, and leak management effectiveness. It urges operators to consider suitable risk models. It is guidance about existing obligations, not a public finding that every operator has the same problem or needs the same device. The Federal Register version says the advisory creates no new legal duty by itself.
Build an evidence ladder
Start with an operator’s PHMSA gas distribution annual report. The form gives a dated system description: miles of main, service counts, pipe material, installation period, repaired leaks by cause, and known leaks scheduled for repair at year-end. This can help a supplier decide whether to study a pipe-replacement program, survey methods, records, or leak-management workflow. It does not display survey route design, instrument sensitivity, crew procedures, weather conditions, repair prioritization, or the contents of a DIMP risk model.
Next, check the report instructions. The instructions define “hazardous leak” for the annual report and explain which repaired leaks are counted. They also say operators that repair all leaks when found need not grade those leaks solely for the report. If your comparison ignores those definitions, the sales hypothesis may rest on a reporting artifact.
Finally, look for operator-specific public material: rate cases, replacement plans, commission orders, board minutes, published requests for proposals, and grant descriptions. Label each document by date and status. A proposal, an approval, a completed project, and an open solicitation are distinct events. Do not collapse them into a single “opportunity.”
Match a claim to a decision
A leak-detection vendor may be able to support more than one operator decision. A field instrument could concern survey coverage, a data product could concern records, and an engineering service could concern how findings enter a risk review. But none of those fit automatically follows from a leak count. The PHMSA advisory emphasizes that risk evaluation must account for threats and leak-management effectiveness. That points to questions about the operator’s method, not a ready-made diagnosis.
Write an account hypothesis with three parts. First, state a dated observation: “The operator reported a given material mix in its calendar-year annual report.” Second, state the unresolved decision: “How does the operator combine asset records and leak information when it plans surveys or replacements?” Third, state a proposed discussion: “We can show how our method records detections and connects findings to existing workflows.” This is more useful than claiming the operator is out of compliance. It tells an engineer why a meeting might help without asserting knowledge you do not have.
Ask for the missing facts
Before recommending a tool or service, ask which threats the operator evaluates, how it grades and verifies leaks, and which data fields its crews capture. Ask who owns survey plans and who approves changes to the DIMP process. Ask what evidence a pilot would need to produce to influence the next decision. These are discovery questions, not conclusions from a public report.
If you compare operators, keep units and years consistent. A repaired-leak count is a flow over a reporting year. A year-end count scheduled for repair is a snapshot. Both appear on the annual form, but adding them or ranking operators from them creates a misleading score. Likewise, an advisory bulletin is a national source. It should not be presented as a site-specific finding.
Define the test before the demonstration
If the operator invites a pilot, agree on a test area, baseline method, access rules, data format, and decision owner. State how the operator will confirm detections and what result would justify a larger evaluation. A field demonstration without these terms can produce impressive images but little decision evidence. Keep the pilot proposal separate from the public-source brief; the brief explains why a conversation is reasonable, while the operator defines what success means on its system.
A good supplier brief ends with the evidence it can show and the questions only the operator can answer. Discuss a proposed source review and discovery brief with GasUtility.ai if you want that distinction built into account research. Any product fit still requires an operator conversation and a defined test.