Hazard register integrity audit
The risk assessment documentation is only as good as the hazard register behind it. This follows every hazard outward, to the systems it is assigned to, the requirements that mitigate it, and the tests behind those, and reports every broken or missing link as a finding.
The problem this solves
The usual failures are quiet ones: a hazard with a control described in the notes that never became a requirement, a requirement that mitigates a hazard but was never tested, a residual risk that was never rated, an accepted disposition with no rationale. Each one is a question from an assessor. This audit finds them first.
How it works
Every hazard followed outward to its requirements, tests and residual risk. Every broken link is a finding. Finds the control described in the notes that never became a requirement, the mitigation that was never tested, and the residual risk that was never rated, before an assessor does.
Where this sits in the Regulation
Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 applies from 20 January 2027, and Annex IV Part A item (b) is the risk assessment documentation this register feeds; the technical file is kept for ten years after the machine is placed on the market. This audit reads the model and reports gaps: it is a readiness check, not a conformity assessment.
Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 on EUR-LexThe prompt
Audit the hazard register in the connected Dalus model. Do not modify the model. Step 1. Read all hazards with every field, all requirements with type, status, verifications, assigned systems and constraints, all test cases with linked requirements, runs and step results, and all parts and connections. Step 2. For each hazard, check: - Has at least one assigned system or connection - Has initial severity and likelihood - Has residual severity and likelihood - Has at least one mitigating requirement - Every mitigating requirement is assigned to at least one system that is also assigned to the hazard, or to a connection between such systems; flag mismatches - Every mitigating requirement has a test case, and at least one run with status Passed - If disposition is "accepted", an acceptance rationale exists - If disposition is "controlled" or "eliminated", residual risk is lower than initial risk; flag where it is not - The description or notes mention a control, measure, guard, limit, analysis or check that does not correspond to any mitigating requirement. Quote the phrase and say no requirement covers it. Also evaluate every requirement constraint against the current variable values and report any that fail, naming the variable, its current value, the limit and the operator. Step 3. For each safety requirement, check that it mitigates at least one hazard. Flag safety requirements that mitigate nothing. Step 4. For each requirement with a constraint on a model variable, evaluate the constraint against the variable's current value and report pass or fail. Step 5. Findings, ranked by the initial severity of the affected hazard, then by category: no mitigation, uncovered control in notes, mitigation not verified, no residual assessment, disposition without rationale, system mismatch, orphan safety requirement, constraint failing. Step 6. Provenance: element IDs behind each finding. Output: a findings report with a summary count per category, the ranked findings, and provenance. Do not restate hazards that pass every check except in a one-line summary count.