Every change request, every incident, every revalidation — connected, current, and at your fingertips.
Hazard Navigator reconciles your PHAs, MOCs, P&IDs, and incident history into one current, source-grounded hazard basis — so the revalidation that’s due, the MOC backlog, and the next audit are handled before they turn into findings. Every result traces to its source.
Built for the moment it lands on your desk
If one of these is in front of you right now, this is where to start.
A PHA revalidation is due
The five-year clock won't move and the SME hours are brutal. Walk in with the cross-checks already done.
An MOC or action backlog
Changes piling up faster than anyone can reconcile them against the basis. See their impact on your scenarios, ranked.
A finding to close
Stale studies, inconsistent safeguard credits, un-reconciled MOCs — resolved before the deadline, not after it.
A turnaround or PSSR
Hazard reviews that have to clear fast, without cutting the corners that come back to bite.
A recent incident — yours or a peer's
Does your PHA actually cover it? Match it against your own scenarios and find out.
A newly acquired asset
An unknown hazard basis, made legible and current in weeks — not quarters.
Concrete findings, not another dashboard to babysit
Point Hazard Navigator at your studies, changes, permits, and incidents. It returns specific, ranked, source-grounded findings — the kind your best engineer would surface if she had a hundred years to read.
- MOCs with unresolved hazard-basis impact
- Safeguards credited inconsistently across studies and operating modes
- Missing or stale PHA scenarios, and incident patterns that match your equipment
- Bypass and isolation context at the permit — and ranked risk reduction opportunities, each linked to source
An engineer who reads every MOC in detail — catching hazard as it accumulates across changes no one looked at together. Who cross-checks every incident, yours and the industry’s, against your own design. Who studies every device and safeguard for the hazard the risk study missed, and ranks what’s most likely to bite you next.
You’d hire them without blinking.
On one representative facility — from real customer data — that is roughly 13.4 million cross-checks, on the order of a hundred person-years. And the connection that takes a plant down is, by its very nature, the one no single person was ever holding.
Not work you’re behind on. Risk you’re carrying blind.
one connection in 13.4M on a real facility — the one no single person was holding
Modern safety systems work. But the complexity they create is drowning you.
Modern process safety works. More protection, more instrumentation, more rigorous analysis, more disciplined change management — it has driven incidents down.
But it came with a hidden cost. Between revalidations, every change, incident, and revision pulls the hazard basis a little further from reality — and keeping it current, consistent, and defensible is a relentless, under-resourced grind.
Quietly, between revalidations
Inconsistent safeguard credits, un-reconciled MOCs, and stale scenarios accumulate where no one has the hours to look — until a revalidation or an audit forces the reckoning.
Nuisance trips, not safety events
When that context doesn’t reach the operator, a correctly-functioning safeguard trips the process exactly as designed — a spurious trip that takes production with it, with no safety event at all.
Abnormal situations of both kinds run on the order of 3–8% of capacity — tens of millions a year at a typical asset, most of it avoidable
One unified understanding of your safety system — working for you.
Hazard Navigator builds one governed, structured model of your safety system. That single asset pays off two ways.
A current, complete, consistent hazard basis — revalidations cleared, MOCs reconciled, study quality held to a standard, every value traced to source. The basis you can defend in an audit.
The right safeguard context at the moment of action — what a device protects, what must be isolated before work, and the cost of a bypass. Fewer nuisance trips — and the business case that funds the program.
The trade-off, dissolved
In functional-safety terms you already manage this trade-off: more protection raises the SIL, but it also raises the spurious-trip rate — every lever moves you along the same curve (IEC 61511). One understanding of the safety system improves both at once.
We don’t ask you to trade safety for uptime — and we never strip protection. We retire the contradictory or redundant safeguard credits that add nuisance trips without adding protection, and we shift the curve.
This isn’t the keyword search that disappointed you a decade ago. Cross-referencing a study against an incident against a change record is a semantic act — reading, and judgment about meaning. That capability now exists, and runs at computing scale.
Unlike any human analyst — and unlike a black box you’d be right to distrust — every value carries an evidence pointer back to its source. It doesn't replace your experts, it delivers the source-locked information they need to do what they do best.
A different category
Archive the study and track its workflow. They record the hazard analysis; they don’t make it intelligent.
Watch the equipment and the sensors. They tell you which asset is at risk, not what your hazard basis says.
The unified hazard intelligence between the two — sound by design, and at the operator’s side in the moment. The only one that can retire a contradictory or redundant safeguard credit where the analysis supports it — never the protection, only the nuisance trips it caused.
Prove it on your data.
Bring the work that’s already due — a unit up for revalidation, or your open MOC backlog. We’ll run the reconciliation read-only and show you what it finds. Ready to move into production if the pilot earns it.
Read-only, evidence-linked, and human-approved — your data stays yours. From a single unit, the economics scale by hazard exposure, not headcount.