Establish the exposure without overstating it

A nearby flash, a lightning-location report and a confirmed attachment to the turbine provide different levels of evidence. Identify which is available and whether its time corresponds with any equipment event. A broad storm report alone cannot identify the path through this installation. Conversely, an absence of alarms is limited by which signals were actually monitored and does not prove that no affected part exists.

Keep visible and concealed questions separate

The review may need to consider blades, structural parts, bonding paths and electrical or control equipment according to the actual design. IEC 61400-24 addresses direct and indirect effects across these systems. Its public scope does not verify MARSTON compliance or prescribe a universal post-strike test. Electrical examination and any access to elevated or stored-energy equipment require the appropriately qualified personnel and applicable procedures.

A component can need examination because it lies on a relevant path even when the visible attachment point is elsewhere. The review should explain the physical boundary it covers rather than reduce the lightning question to finding the darkest mark on the turbine.

Define the inspection boundary

Ask the responsible reviewers which components and paths the event evidence puts in question and which findings are required before a release decision. A normal exterior can be one observation within that scope. It cannot replace the missing internal or functional evidence. No MARSTON lightning protection level, surge performance or restart permission is assumed; request the actual design and equipment-specific assessment requirements.