Research report · Critical controls
The controls that prevent a fatality
Many operations have spent a decade driving recordable injury rates down. This report asks whether the controls that prevent a fatality have improved at the same pace, and how a leadership team would know.
Placeholder. This report summary is placeholder copy written to test layout and tone. It is not published research and makes no factual claims.
This is the planned outline of the flagship report. The report itself is a placeholder; the chapters below describe the questions it will answer, not findings.
What the report asks
Recordable injury rates and serious injury and fatality (SIF) exposure measure different things. A site can improve one while the other stands still. The report sets out how a leadership team can see the second: which critical controls protect against a serious event, how often they are verified where the work happens, and what the verification records.
Exhibit 1 Illustrative data
In this illustrative group, one site’s field verification fell sharply while the others held steady
Planned critical-control verifications completed in the field, five illustrative sites, 2024 and 2025, percent
SourceIllustrative data for design purposes only. Not a research finding and not to be quoted.
NoteValues are placeholders chosen to demonstrate the exhibit format. They describe no real sites.
Data behind this exhibit
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Site A | 2024: 74%; 2025: 72% |
| Site B | 2024: 70%; 2025: 46% |
| Site C | 2024: 62%; 2025: 65% |
| Site D | 2024: 58%; 2025: 60% |
| Site E | 2024: 52%; 2025: 55% |
Cite this exhibit
Before the Incident, “In this illustrative group, one site’s field verification fell sharply while the others held steady,” Exhibit 1 (2026). Illustrative data; not a research finding and not to be quoted. Link
A site-level view tells a different story from the group average. The exhibit below shows the same measure for one site, quarter by quarter.
Exhibit 2 Illustrative data
In this illustrative program, the share of control verifications done in the field fell each quarter
Planned critical-control verifications completed in the field, one site, by quarter, percent
SourceIllustrative data for design purposes only. Not a research finding and not to be quoted.
NoteValues are placeholders chosen to demonstrate the exhibit format. They describe no real site.
Data behind this exhibit
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Q1 | 72% |
| Q2 | 64% |
| Q3 | 58% |
| Q4 | 41% |
Cite this exhibit
Before the Incident, “In this illustrative program, the share of control verifications done in the field fell each quarter,” Exhibit 2 (2026). Illustrative data; not a research finding and not to be quoted. Link
Diagram 1 Conceptual
A serious event is prevented by controls on both sides of it; one degraded control can be enough to open a path
Bow-tie model: threats on the left, consequences on the right, the hazardous event at the center
Source: Conceptual diagram for design purposes only. Not a research finding; does not depict a real site or event.
A leadership team that sees only the first of the three figures below would draw a different conclusion from one that sees all three.
Exhibit 3 Illustrative data
In this illustrative site, a recordable rate of 0.8 sits beside 41 percent field verification
Three measures for one illustrative site, end of 2025
- 0.8 Recordable injury rate Per 200,000 hours worked, one site, 2025
- 41% Critical-control verifications done in the field Share of those planned, Q4 2025
- 14 Overdue energy-isolation verifications Count at the end of Q4 2025
SourceIllustrative data for design purposes only. Not a research finding and not to be quoted.
NoteValues are placeholders chosen to demonstrate the key-figure format. They describe no real site.
Data behind this exhibit
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Recordable injury rate (Per 200,000 hours worked, one site, 2025) | 0.8 |
| Critical-control verifications done in the field (Share of those planned, Q4 2025) | 41% |
| Overdue energy-isolation verifications (Count at the end of Q4 2025) | 14 |
Cite this exhibit
Before the Incident, “In this illustrative site, a recordable rate of 0.8 sits beside 41 percent field verification,” Exhibit 3 (2026). Illustrative data; not a research finding and not to be quoted. Link
Planned chapters
Each chapter takes one part of the system, from precursor reporting to control verification to the questions a board can ask, and sets out what to look for, what to measure and where the measures stop. Interpretation is labeled as interpretation, and every figure will carry its source, base and period.
In this report
- 01Injury rates and serious-event risk can move apart
- 02What the precursors of serious injuries and fatalities look like
- 03What it means to verify a critical control in the field
- 04Weak signals depend on people reporting them freely
- 05Questions for the board
- 06Method and limits
How this report is made
- Authors
- To be named before launch (placeholder).
- Data basis
- Placeholder: the sources and data behind this report will be described here before publication.
- Funding and conflicts
- Placeholder pending the editorial standards disclosure (see About).