Purpose of the Task

This task helps learners understand how poor documentation affects ISO-aligned safety systems. It trains the learner to identify incorrect, incomplete, or misleading safety documents and rewrite them to meet professional, strategic, and ISO-45001-compliant standards.

Scenario:

A contractor submits a risk assessment to the main contractor. The document contains several errors, missing information, and non-compliant practices. The assessor provides the defective document for review.

Learners must:

• Identify all faults.
• Explain why each fault creates risk or non-compliance.
• Rewrite the document correctly.
• Show how the corrected version supports ISO standards, quantifiable risk scoring, and clear risk communication.

PART A — Faulty / Incorrect Document (Assessor-Provided)

Faulty Risk Assessment (Intentionally Poor Quality)

Field	Entry in Faulty Document
Task /Location	Construction site
Activity	Working
Hazard	Tools
Who Might Be Harmed	Workers
Who Likelihood (1–5)	1
Severity (1–5)	1
Risk Score	1
Existing Controls	1
Additional Action Required	PPE is available.
Action Owner	Safety man
Date	Not filled
Review	When needed

PART B — Fault Identification Table (Model Example)

Fault Identified	Why It Is a Problem	ISO / Strategic Risk Link
Task is written as “Working.”	Not specific. No clarity on the actual activity.	ISO 45001 requires contextspecific hazard identification.
Location written only as “Construction site.”	Large area. No defined boundary.	Limits risk communication; breaks ISO requirement for operational planning.
Hazard described as “Tools.”	Too vague; no risk pathway identified.	Fails systematic hazard identification. People
People at risk listed only as “Workers.”	Excludes visitors, subcontractors, supervisors, pedestrians.	Poor stakeholder risk evaluation
Likelihood 1 + Severity 1 without justification	Underestimates risk. Document gives no evidence of assessment.	Violates quantifiable risk evaluation principles.
Risk score 1	Unrealistic for construction hazards.	Weakens strategic risk decisionmaking.
Existing controls: “PPE is available.”	Does not confirm correct PPE type, condition, or enforcement.	Lacks hierarchy of controls and ISO documentation detail.
Additional actions marked as “None.”	Shows no forward planning or improvement.	Opposes ISO clause on continual improvement.
Action owner written as “Safety man.”	Unprofessional, unclear, not a formal role.	Accountability failure.
Date missing	No traceability.	Breaks ISO requirement for documented information control.
Review field: “When needed.”	Too subjective; no set review frequency.	Contradicts operational control planning.

PART C — Corrected / Rewritten Risk Assessment (ModelCompleted Sample)

Corrected Risk Assessment – Fully Completed and ISO-Aligned:

Field	Corrected Entry
Task / Location	Block B, Level 2 – Installation of cable tray using step ladder
Activity	Electricians installing cable tray at height (2.2 m) using hand tools and ladder
Hazard	Fall from ladder; dropped tools; manual handling strain; electrical contact with live points
Who Might Be Harmed	Electricians, adjacent workers, visitors passing under work area
Likelihood (1–5)	3 (activity involves height and manual tools; medium probability without strong controls)
Severity (1–5)	4 (possible fracture, head injury, severe strain) Risk
Risk Score	12 (Medium–High)
Existing Controls	Ladder inspected and tagged; trained electricians; exclusion zone established; insulated tools; permit to work; supervisor present
Additional Action	Use podium step instead of ladder; install tool-lanyards to prevent drops;
Required	add warning signage; verify cable run is isolated before work
Action Owner	Site Electrical Supervisor
Date	20/11/2025
Review	Review one week after task completion or sooner if an incident occurs

PART D — Explanation of How the Corrected Version Meets the Unit Learning Outcomes

Development and Implementation of ISO Standards

The corrected risk assessment follows ISO 45001 requirements by:

• Using clear activity descriptions
• Identifying hazards through a structured method
• Including control hierarchy evidence
• Ensuring traceability through dates, roles, and review schedule
• Demonstrating continual improvement

Evaluation of Strategic Risks Using Quantifiable Assessment

The corrected document:

• Breaks down risk into likelihood × severity
• Provides justification for scoring
• Uses a clear numerical system to support decision-making
• Supports senior leadership in prioritising controls based on real risk levels

Articulation of Risk Communication Strategies

The improved document improves communication by:

• Giving clear language for all parties
• Showing exact locations and actions
• Presenting professional accountability
• Allowing consistent interpretation by workers, supervisors, auditors, and management

PART E — Learner Task Instructions

Learners must now:

• Review the faulty document.
• Identify and list at least 15 faults.
• Rewrite the document in a fully compliant manner.
• Compare their corrected version to the model example.
• Explain how their corrected document supports ISO standards, quantifiable risk scoring, and risk communication.