Allow attributes to be used for inspections upper and lower boundaries (and conditions)

Consider electrical assets A and B. They are part of the same classification hierarchy (common parent), but they are different assets. Being similar, they use the same inspection form - or should use, at least.

One of the questions in the inspection form asks for the current in one of the components of these assets to be measured, and it validates the interval measured.

1. For asset A, the valid (ficticious, just to ilustrate the point, don't mind the numbers) interval is > 1 mA and < 5 mA.

2. For asset B, the valid interval is > 6 mA and < 10 mA

If the measured value is not within the interval, the inspector needs to be informed immediately (as the answer is populated), as there could be a number of critical risks involved.

With current functionality, you would need either a conditional question for each of those intervals (based on the asset classification) or 2 different inspection forms, even if that is the only question that is different for assets A and B.

However, with dozens of different scenarios, this quickly becomes extremely hard to manage, requiring hundreds/thousands of different questions/forms to manage it.

This idea is a simplification of https://ibm-ai-apps.ideas.ibm.com/ideas/MOBILE1-I-67, and can hopefully be delivered much faster and earlier. Our suggestion is that instead of formulas, we allow single attributes (instead of a hard coded number) to be used to define:

• Intervals (so instead of numbers when configuring the intervals, you would populate an object/relationship attribute name)

• Conditions (so attributes can also be used to test conditions on whether to show a question or not)