RAMS

A method statement is not a file on somebody's laptop. SimOps holds a deliberately thin register over the contractor's Risk Assessment & Method Statement paperwork: the document's identity, its revisions, who reviewed each one and what they said, and who has been briefed on it. The PDF stays an opaque PDF — SimOps never decomposes the risk tables or the method into fields it would then have to keep in step with the real document.

What it does for you

• The document has an identity; the revisions carry the files. A RAMS document is site + authoring contractor + title + reference number. Each RAMS revision is immutable: a rev label, the attached file(s), a review date, and one overall verdict.
• One verdict per revision, and nobody re-decides it. submitted → accepted | accepted_with_comments | rejected. A rejection sends the contractor back to upload a new revision; there is no second decision on an old one, and the current revision is derived (the latest accepted), never a stored flag somebody can leave wrong.
• The review sheet is evidence, not a gate. A RAMS review lane records one discipline's opinion — reviewer, note, date, optional verdict — from a per-site registry of disciplines. Lanes never individually gate: on a real review sheet most of them are blank, and the revision's status is the overall verdict.
• Permits stand on a named revision. A permit links a RAMS document, and the linked revision's identity folds into the permit's content hash at submit — so an approval attests the exact method it rested on. Submission warns, never blocks, on an unreviewed, superseded or past-review-date RAMS: the desk is told, and the desk decides.
• The talk is captured where it happens. A RAMS briefing signature records that a named person was briefed on a specific revision — name, company, timestamp and the revision's content hash — captured either by a supervisor on the operative's behalf or self-served through a per-revision QR link. No user account is minted for a driver or a visiting crew.
• The review date chases itself. A sweep fires a review-due reminder ahead of a revision's review date, in days rather than hours, and an expired notice after it.

Signing on means being in the room

The public sign-on page is credential-free by design — the token is the credential — so an unattended link is exactly as trustworthy as an unattended clipboard. Where that is not good enough, a briefing link can be minted with proof of presence: the briefer's device displays a six-digit code derived from a per-link seed and rotating every thirty seconds, and the sign-on will not write a signature without it. It is opt-in per link and honest about its scope: it closes remote fabrication for the live supervised toolbox talk, and does nothing for a printed poster on a noticeboard, where there is no device to show a live code. Best-effort duplicate-name detection and an optional per-link signature cap carry that async case instead.

Who still needs the talk

When a new revision is accepted, the briefing roster does not simply reset. The re-briefing delta is derived on every read: the people who signed a prior accepted revision and have not yet signed the current one — the briefer's answer to "who must the next talk include?". Prior revisions' active links flip to superseded in the same transaction that accepts the new one, so a stale QR on a gate poster tells the crew a newer revision is in force rather than merely going dead.

See it / try it

Where to go next

• Permits (Permit-to-Work) — the permit that stands on a named revision.
• Inspections — checking that the method is being followed.
• Corrective actions — where a finding against the method ends up.