Inside Hazard Navigator
Three layers, one model — ingest the siloes into a governed structure, explore it at the point of decision, and run the analytics that keep your hazard basis current, consistent, and revalidation-ready.
The siloes, finally in one place
Hazard Navigator pulls together the sources that have always lived apart and maps them onto a common structure — so they can be reasoned about together.
- ~270 equipment types and ~2,800 failure modes, standardized
- 12 discriminating consequence types sourced from 183 distinct hazardous conditions
- A device in an MOC, a scenario in a study, and an event in an incident report finally connect
- Every value grounded to its source with a content hash — auditable from day one
The whole picture, at the point of decision
The Explorers put the unified model at the fingertips of the people making operational calls. Start from any device, scenario, change, or incident and see everything connected to it.
- What a safeguard protects against, and the consequence of bypassing it
- Every piece of equipment, all MOC records that impact it, and every incident the equipment was involved with
- The complexity of a modern SIS demystified — with the source one click away
Every study complete, comprehensive, and efficient
Compass is the engine of study quality — and it supports the authoring itself, so your specialists spend their judgment on the analysis, not the paperwork.
- Complete — no missing scenarios, causes, or safeguards
- Comprehensive — every credible event, covered consistently against a standard
- Efficient — effort spent where the hazard is, not duplicated
An evergreen PHA — and the actions that reduce risk
A PHA is usually stale before the binder closes. Spyglass keeps it alive, continuously reconciling changes and incidents against the hazard basis — so a revalidation is a refresh, not a restart.
- Detects hazard accumulation, safeguard-crediting contradictions, and MOC→scenario impact
- Runs the millions of cross-checks that surface the non-obvious connection
- Ranks your top risk reduction opportunities for upset, incident, and downtime — with the evidence behind each
Both payoffs, from one structured model
Pairwise relevance judgments on one real dataset
~110 person-years of expert effort, run deterministically.
Equipment types and failure modes
With detection of safeguard-crediting contradictions and MOC→scenario impact.
Given a device, instantly
What it protects against, the consequence of bypassing it, and compensating measures.
Carries a grounding status
An evidence pointer with a content hash to source — the line an ungoverned model cannot cross.
Real output, from the actual product
Not mockups. These are screens from Hazard Navigator — every finding ranked, explained, and traceable to the document behind it.
A sample of what one reconciliation surfaces — change drivers, affected safeguards, and the open questions for review.
Every finding traces to its source. One click from a finding to the MOC, P&ID, or incident behind it — nothing asks you to take its word.
Change impact, made explicit. What a change does to the hazard basis: existing versus inadequate safeguards, and the actions that resolve it.
Your scenarios, matched to incidents. Internal and industry events scored against your study — common-cause patterns, not guesswork.
Findings ranked by severity. Each tied to evidence and to prior incidents, with status across review.
At the permit, in the moment. What to isolate, what to verify, and the change the work depends on.
Study quality, scored. Completeness and consistency against a standard, so effort goes where the hazard is.
A review layer — not an autopilot
Hazard Navigator gives your experts a governed, evidence-linked view. It does not replace their judgment, and it never touches a safety system on its own.
We work from copies of your documents — no write access to operational systems.
Your facility data stays under your control; handling is scoped to your security requirements.
Each assertion links back to its source with a content hash.
Nothing enters your hazard basis until an SME signs off.
Findings and recommendations only — the human stays in the seat.
Data handling, deployment, and security posture are agreed up front as part of pilot scoping.
See it on your own data.
A pilot runs the full analysis on one of your units and shows you what it finds.