What would justify jetting a drain after an auger?

A camera can show where a visible obstruction sits and whether it looks like a localized object or material coating the pipe; it may also reveal visible defects along the portion inspected. But deposits, standing water, or the blockage itself can obscure the view, and what’s seen doesn’t establish conditions beyond that inspected section or prove the pipe is sound. I’d treat the footage as evidence for choosing a next step, not a complete map of the line’s condition.

Material matters, but condition matters too: sound pipe may tolerate appropriate jetting, while deterioration, cracks, or weak joints could make it risky. I’d want those concerns assessed before choosing the method; the fact that a line is a particular material alone doesn’t settle whether jetting is suitable.

I’d separate “could this pipe tolerate jetting?” from “is jetting likely to address the problem?” Pipe condition is the first filter for risk, but evidence of buildup over a longer section is what would make jetting seem useful; a sound pipe alone wouldn’t justify it. If the camera can’t establish the buildup’s extent, that uncertainty may matter as much as whether the visible section looks sound.

A blockage returning after augering, by itself, doesn’t tell you whether the cause is local or spread along the pipe. If the return can be reliably tied to the same spot, that may be a clue to a recurring local snag, but it isn’t proof: the auger may have left material behind, or there may be buildup nearby. I’d weigh that pattern alongside what the inspection actually shows.