A plumbing inspection report describes an existing system on one day. That sounds simple until you notice that two different professionals produce this document under two very different sets of rules, and most templates in circulation ignore the difference entirely.
The InterNACHI Standards of Practice exclude, in their own words, determining "the exact flow rate, volume, pressure, temperature or adequacy of the water supply". They exclude operating "any valve". They exclude testing "shower pans, tub and shower surrounds or enclosures for leakage". ASHI likewise does not require pressure or flow measurement. So a form with a bare "static pressure ___ psi" box is asking a home inspector to step outside their standard of practice, which is a real liability exposure rather than a pedantic distinction. A licensed plumber on a service call has no such constraint. This builder asks which one you are, and marks the out-of-scope measurements on the report rather than hiding the fields or pretending the issue does not exist.
The measurements themselves are the other place these forms go wrong. IPC 604.8 requires a pressure reducing valve above 80 psi, and that is a genuine code deficiency. There is no corresponding minimum. The 40 to 60 psi range everyone quotes is trade convention — the code governs minimum flow pressure at fixture outlets under peak demand in Table 604.3, which is a different measurement taken a different way. So a low reading here is reported as an advisory that says plainly it is not a code deficiency. Similarly, 120°F is a limit on what a shower or bathtub valve must be capable of being set to under IPC 412.3 and 412.5, and a CPSC recommendation for a water heater. It is not a storage temperature cap, because the IPC does not contain one. Printing folklore as a code citation on a document a client may act on is the failure this report is built to avoid.