## 6 Conclusions  
This study proposes that integrity analysis should be conducted through six distinct assessments: (i) static operation and storm, (ii) dynamic storm, (iii) strength-level seismic, (iv) seismic ductility (pushover), (v) maximum wave resistance (pushover), and (vi) spectral fatigue.  
* The static operation and storm analysis includes the evaluation of unity checks (UCs) in structural elements, tubular joints, piles, and safety factors to ensure compliance with the design criteria.
* The dynamic storm analysis considers the influence of vibration modes and periods on the platform's response. The findings indicate that this analysis results in more unfavorable conditions compared to the static operation and storm analysis.
* For the strength-level seismic analysis, different master node configurations were evaluated, highlighting their impact on U.C. assessments in structural elements, tubular joints, and piles. This study proposes reinforcement solutions for elements that do not meet the regulatory requirements.
* The seismic ductility analysis reveals that the collapse mechanism initiates in the topside structure, reaching the Cr factor in all analyzed directions.
* In the ultimate wave resistance analysis, the collapse mechanism is observed to originate in the jacket structure, with the platform meeting the required reserve strength ratio (RSR) in all eight analyzed directions.
* The spectral fatigue analysis provides insights into the behavior of tubular joints under different S-N curves. The results indicate that the fatigue life of all tubular joints is reached within the expected operational period.
* Through the execution of these analyses, the structural behavior of the platform under both linear and nonlinear static conditions can be assessed, allowing for the identification of critical zones requiring reinforcement. Furthermore, compliance with regulatory standards is verified to ensure the structural integrity and performance of the platform under various loading scenarios throughout its service life.  
**Author Contributions:** [PERSON] led the development of the model, including its approach, analysis, design, and interpretation of the results. [PERSON] provided significant input to the mathematical framework, while [PERSON] carried out a thorough review. Ultimately, all authors collaborated in formulating the conclusions derived from the research findings. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
**Funding:** This research was supported by internal funding provided by the Universidad Autonoma del Carmen (UNACAR), Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche, Mexico. No external funding was received for this study.  
**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Data Availability Statement:** Data are contained within the article.  
**Acknowledgments:** The authors, [PERSON], [PERSON], [PERSON], express their gratitude for the support provided by the Secretaria de Ciencia, Humanidades, Tecnologia e Innovacion (SECHTI), the Programa para el Desarrollo Professional Docente (PRODEP), and the Grupo Disciplinar Ingenieria Extructural Aplicada e Ingenieria de la Construccion y sus Procesos Sustentables through Universidad Autonoma del Carmen (UNACAR).  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest.