Check whether a change worked

So far you've produced one number about one task. That's enough to decide where to act, but not enough to say whether acting worked.

There are two ways to get a second assessment, and which one you use depends on the question you're asking.

Neither is better than the other. Modelling is the cheaper and more constrained of the two; re-assessment is the one that can show a change in how the work is actually done.

When a control from Create and track risk controls is implemented, assess the task again — the same task, the same way you assessed it before: same work task, same boundaries, a representative sample of the same work.

Create that follow-up assessment in the app with Repeat: on the work task's screen, open the original, come back, and choose Repeat in the top bar. It carries over the work task, person, location, work area, shift, tags and notes, but not the job — set that again, and all that's left is to capture. As well as saving time, Repeat helps make sure the follow-up assesses the same thing as the original.

Then open the two assessments and compare the scores and the graphs.

What you can say is what you saw: the same task, before and after, and where the movement changed. Two assessments of one task are evidence about that task. Describe them that way, rather than as a controlled trial, and a good result will stand up to scrutiny later.

The second comparison needs no new capture at all, and you do it in Etiscope Capture on the iPad or iPhone rather than in the dashboard.

Suppose the proposal is fewer repeats per shift: a rotation rather than a rebuild. You'd like to know whether it's worth making the case before you make it.

1. In the app's assessment list, swipe the assessment's row and choose Duplicate.
2. Open the duplicate, then Report actions → Add extra information.
3. Change the value the proposal would change — repeats, duration, perceived load, exposure — and save.

The duplicate re-scores immediately. The original is untouched, and the difference between the two scores is your model of the change.

This is the technique behind a business case: a number attached to a proposal, produced immediately, from a capture you already own.

Back in the dashboard, the control's Stats tab draws risk control effectiveness: the spread of scores for every assessment on the control's work task, as a box-and-whisker.

As before-and-after assessments accumulate, this is where the population answer lives — not one task's story, but the distribution across everything captured on that work task.

Read it for what it shows: the spread of the assessments that exist. It doesn't show that the control caused the shift, whatever the chart's title suggests. Open the records from the Assessments tab when you want the stories behind the spread.

One boundary keeps both comparisons honest, and it's the most useful thing to take away from this lesson.

Editing values re-scores the same captured movement. So what-if models changes to exposure and organisation: durations, repeats, loads. Those are real changes and they move the score legitimately.

It can't model a change in posture or technique, because the movement in the data hasn't changed. Editing a duplicate can't show the worker bending less, so a smaller number produced that way wouldn't mean anything.

If the change alters how the body moves — new equipment, a redesigned workstation, a different way of doing the job — capture it again.

Model the paperwork; re-capture the movement.