Methodology
Patent AU + US · Consequence-weighted
The Consequential Risk Score — consequence-weighted, not just exposure-weighted.
MSD risk is multi-factorial — it emerges from how load, posture, repetition, duration and force combine, against recovery, environment and how the work is organised. The score integrates those factors, then weights them by injury severity, recovery pathway and claims-cost data — so it reflects how consequential the exposure is, not just how exposed one body region is.
The premise
A problem made of many factors needs more than one number.
A score that measures one axis in isolation misreads a risk built from many. The Consequential Risk Score integrates multiple exposure and context factors first, then applies consequence weighting — so the result reflects which task is going to hurt someone, not just which angle crossed a threshold.
For more on how Etiscope scores a task — the inputs, the scope, the standards and the validation — see the score.
A risk score is only useful if it changes a decision.
What goes in
Three streams of input.
01
Biomechanical exposure
Five inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensors capture what the body actually does in the real task — angles, velocities, durations, repetitions and sustained postures.
02
Task context
Assessor inputs describe the conditions the sensors can't see: load and force, the environment, the tools, how the work is organised.
03
Consequence weighting
The methodology weights raw exposure by injury severity, recovery pathway and claims-cost data — the proprietary core.
What the score is
- A triage instrument — which tasks to look at first
- A decision input — where to spend a control budget
- A validation instrument — did a change actually work
- A defensible record — regulator- and insurer-ready evidence
What it isn't
- A medical diagnosis or clinical decision-making system
- A fault or liability determination
- A drop-in substitute for NIOSH or any single index
- A worker-coaching or monitoring tool
Relationship to existing methods
Built to sit alongside the frameworks you already trust.
The framework is open to scrutiny and aligns with established assessment methods and standards.
Methodology aligned with Safe Work Australia hazardous manual task guidance, ISO 31000, and ISO 11228-1, and with REBA, RULA, MAC (HSE INDG383), ART (HSE INDG438), RAPP (HSE INDG478), and HSE Upper Limb Disorders guidance (HSG60). Lower-limb postures within REBA are not yet covered by the sensor configuration. The Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation is methodologically distinct and not directly comparable.
Validation & research
Tested against practitioners, and with researchers.
A validation study compared Etiscope's scoring with ergonomics and human-factors professionals in five countries, building on mining pilot trials against expert assessors (ACARP Final Report, 2018). This is agreement, not accuracy: observational risk assessment has no ground truth, and every agreement level in the study was modest.
The methodology has been examined and applied with research partners including the University of Waterloo (CRE-MSD) and Cranfield University — alongside a practitioner network applying it in the field.
Known limitations
Where the score stops — stated plainly.
- Lower-limb postures within REBA are not yet covered by the sensor configuration.
- The Revised NIOSH Lifting Equation is methodologically distinct and not directly comparable.
- Calibration reflects the cohorts measured to date.
- The score describes task risk, not an individual worker's injury prediction.
- Even trained professionals assessing the same task often disagree, and agreement was lowest at the neck. The score supports professional judgement on controls; it does not replace it.