● Two open pits in simultaneous operation. ● A haulage system that operates continuously (24/7), with day and night shifts. ● More than 1,100 operators exposed, including 178 mining truck operators. ● A dispatch center that monitors the fatigue alert system in real time. ● The presence of risk-amplifying factors, such as long ramps, mixed traffic, presence of water on the runway, and variability in the experience and age of the operators. The OAS system classifies fatigue events into different severity levels and activates pause and control protocols from the control center. However, historical analysis of its reports reveals limitations inherent in an event-centric approach, such as: ● Repeat offenses by operators with multiple fatigue alerts. ● Concentration of alarms at certain times, shifts and months. ● Persistence of events despite the application of active breaks. ● Occurrence of events in critical time windows. These findings highlight that, while the system effectively detects the manifestation of the event, it does not provide an explicit reading of the accumulated state of the system or the probability of occurrence of future high-energy events, reinforcing the need for an anticipatory approach at the systemic level. 2. PROBLEM DEFINITION Modern mining continues to manage risk primarily by measuring past events, such as incidents, deviations, operational failures, critical exposures, or performance losses. While traditional statistical models allow for the analysis of historical trends and the estimation of probabilities, these approaches have structural limitations when dealing with complex, dynamic, and constantly evolving systems. In particular, three main limitations are identified: 2.1.Dependence on the past Conventional models require significant volumes of historical data for calibration, which do not always represent emerging conditions, unprecedented configurations, or accelerated changes in operating systems. 2.2.Exclusion of unobservable states Many critical system configurations never materialize as reportable incidents or events. However, these configurations may contain significant operational stresses that increase the potential for high-energy events, remaining invisible to traditional indicators. 2.3.Limited anticipatory capacity Most indicators considered “predictive” rely on indirect proxies, such as behavioral reports, inspections, or observed unsafe conditions, which offer limited and, in many cases, late anticipation of dangerous system states. 4
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2