Approvals and effectiveness reviews

Approvals

Choose who gives the final sign-off on completed items. There are two to start: incident investigations, and equipment and maintenance. Leave one blank and that item is finalized by the first person who signs it, which is the right behaviour for a small contractor with nobody to route to.

Only active members appear in the picker, so a report can never be addressed to someone who has left.

Effectiveness reviews

After a corrective action is verified it can be checked again later to see whether the fix actually held. Choose how many check-ins you want and how many days out each one sits. New organizations start at 30, 60 and 90 days, and you can change that at any time.

Which actions get them

• An investigation’s corrective actions always get them, automatically. An investigation exists because something caused damage or injury, so the fix is followed up whether or not anybody remembers to ask for it.
• Everything else — an inspection finding, a maintenance deficiency, an action somebody typed in — gets them only if the person verifying it ticks the box on the verify screen.

That split is deliberate. Replacing a set of wiper blades does not need three scheduled check-ins over ninety days, and scheduling them anyway fills the review queue with work nobody intends to do. A queue nobody works through makes the programme look compliant while the follow-up that matters is buried among the trivia.

Three follow-ups on every action is right for a serious corrective action and far too much for a housekeeping fix: it produces a review queue nobody works through, and a queue nobody works through is worse than no reviews at all, because the program looks compliant while the follow-up is not happening.