of how it interacts with the task-based JSA process: when a JSA is required, how the frontline assessment builds on the analysis already completed, and what information should flow down from earlier layers so workers are not expected to recreate organisational risk understanding on the spot. If, instead, the tool is intended as a verification step, then its design should focus on confirming the presence and effectiveness of the controls that matter most for the specific task, particularly those that prevent single or multiple fatalities, rather than defaulting to generic checks or low-consequence hazards. In the absence of explicit design decisions, frontline tools often sit uncomfortably between these two purposes, resulting in inconsistent application, variable quality, and reduced confidence that the final check is actually assuring the controls that keep people safe. 4. MECHANISM: HOW LOST OR IMPLICIT DESIGN DECISIONS AFFECT FATAL-RISK CONTROL When organisations do not acknowledge or refresh foundational design decisions around how health and safety connect to ORM, how risk criteria are defined and reconciled, where control information is stored and accessed, where critical controls live and how they are verified and how investigations feed back into the information chain. Governance reports may present confidence, while supervisors lack reliable, area-specific signals of control status. Investigations can generate corrective actions without updating the risk profile or control standards. KPIs drift toward counting activity rather than testing effectiveness. In this environment, managing potentially fatal risks becomes inconsistent because the system’s intent is not mirrored in what the frontline can see and verify. 5. METHOD This paper synthesises patterns identified through direct professional experience: recurring issues observed during system reviews, control-verification activities, audits, and collaborative safety workshops. These reflections highlight practical system behaviours rather than theoretical constructs, drawing on insights from frontline workers, supervisors, managers, Site Senior Executives (SSEs), and Subject-Matter Experts (SMEs). 6. FINDINGS Across organisations, several consistent patterns emerge. Variation in system design is normal, but when the rationale for that variation is not captured and refreshed, clarity erodes and people begin to work from different assumptions. Loss of organisational memory is a central mechanism in this drift: the original design decisions, whether to integrate or deliberately separate health and safety processes from other operational systems such as work management, planning, maintenance, or process control, often become implicit, undocumented, or forgotten. As those decisions fade from view, taxonomies and thresholds evolve locally, and the definitions used to identify and prioritise material unwanted events diverge. These design choices extend to the selection and shaping of tools. Decisions about which tools are used at different layers and how they are designed, particularly task-based tools such as 16
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2