Readiness is specific to the work being attempted
A general site survey cannot establish readiness for every possible change. The requirements depend on the planned equipment, mounting, connectivity and acceptance process. A condition irrelevant to one assignment can block another.
The assessment should therefore begin with the sequence of work and its dependencies. If the installation requires a new circuit, that circuit's usable state matters. If it requires remote configuration, the access and engineer matter. Each required condition should have evidence appropriate to the step it enables.
Google's production-readiness model evaluates reliability needs for the particular service rather than applying one undifferentiated standard. The corresponding field-service inference is that readiness should be tied to the actual installation and the service it will leave behind.
A blocker prevents completion or supported recovery
A missing item becomes a blocker when the team cannot achieve the required result or preserve a supported fallback without it. The issue may concern physical suitability, authorized access, essential materials or a required technical dependency.
An unconfirmed administrative credential can be as decisive as a missing cable if the planned change cannot be completed or reversed without it. Treating only physical conditions as readiness risks leaves the control path unexamined.
The decision should explain the consequence clearly. Stating that access is pending is weaker than stating that the team cannot apply or restore the required configuration until the authorized account is available. The second statement tells the project what must be resolved and why.
A manageable exception needs a supported treatment
Some issues can be handled without preventing the intended result. The treatment may be an approved alternative part, a revised sequence or a limited scope that leaves a coherent operating state. The exception should identify who accepts it and how it affects time, cost or support.
An exception is not simply a blocker renamed to preserve the schedule. The team needs evidence that the proposed treatment is compatible with the equipment and the operating requirements. A substitute selected solely because it is on hand can move the uncertainty into the live environment.
The treatment should also be repeatable enough to document. If it depends on an undocumented improvisation that only the installer understands, the site may be technically functional but difficult to support after handoff.
Readiness can expire before the appointment
A survey establishes conditions at a point in time. Renovation, deliveries, configuration changes and staffing can alter those conditions before installation. The items most likely to change need a proportionate confirmation close enough to the visit to be meaningful.
This is particularly relevant to shared spaces and dependent trades. A room that was accessible during the survey may be occupied or under construction on installation day. A promised circuit or pathway may not be available in the form the design assumed.
The project should identify the owner of each unresolved dependency and the evidence that will close it. A verbal assurance that everything will be ready is less useful than a specific confirmation tied to the required condition.
A hold should have a clear release condition
Rescheduling is most effective when it prevents a predictable failed visit and gives the project a concrete path forward. The hold record should identify the blocker, responsible party and evidence needed before the new appointment is confirmed.
The readiness decision is ultimately about preserving a workable outcome. Proceed when the dependencies support completion and recovery, accept exceptions when their treatment is understood, and reschedule when the missing condition removes those options. That makes the decision explainable to both the field team and the business waiting for the work.