Incident Report Ambiguity
At 02:40 on 14 March, a warehouse team leader at a supply depot submitted this 38-word incident summary: 'The forklift reversed into the pallet stack because the loader had not sounded the horn, and it had been left projecting into the aisle.' The safety officer sees three possible readings: the loader failed to warn; the forklift's horn was defective; or the pallet stack stuck out into the aisle. Witness statements confirm the forklift horn worked, the loader was 11 m away and gave no warning, and the stack did not project into the aisle. The summary also calls the injured worker 'relatively uninjured' although she was sent to the medical bay, and describes the shift as 'completely chaotic' although no other incident occurred. The review board wants a precise version of no more than 40 words that separates confirmed facts from opinion, plus a short note on why the original wording could mislead.
1. Identify every ambiguous reference in the original summary and state, using the witness evidence, which reading is supported.
Read the worked answer
Ambiguous references:
it had been left projectingcan refer to the forklift or to the pallet stack.because the loader had not sounded the horncan mean the loader failed to sound a warning, or that the horn was missing or defective.relatively uninjuredhas no stated comparison and sits awkwardly with transfer to the medical bay.
Evidence check: The horn worked, so the defective-horn reading is unsupported. The stack did not project into the aisle, so it cannot mean the stack in that sense. The loader was 11 m away and gave no warning, so the supported reading is that the loader failed to sound a warning and the forklift reversed into the stack. The original misleads because the nearest noun before it is stack, which invites the wrong reading.
2. Rewrite the incident summary in no more than 40 words so that it contains only confirmed facts and no ambiguity.
Read the worked answer
One acceptable version is:
At 02:40 on 14 March, a forklift reversed into a pallet stack after a loader 11 m away gave no horn warning. The forklift horn worked. One worker attended the medical bay; no other incidents occurred.
This is 36 words. It removes the ambiguous it, states the confirmed cause (no warning from the loader), records that the horn was functional, and replaces relatively uninjured and completely chaotic with observable facts. It does not claim the worker was uninjured, because that was not established at the scene.
3. Explain whether 'relatively uninjured' and 'completely chaotic' are appropriate in an incident report. Suggest replacements.
Read the worked answer
Neither phrase is appropriate. Relatively uninjured implies a comparison with an unstated standard and may understate a real injury; the confirmed fact is that the worker attended the medical bay, not that she was uninjured. A safer wording is: One worker attended the medical bay; no visible injuries were reported at the scene.
Completely chaotic is an evaluative conclusion, not an observation. The report gives no measure of chaos and says no other incident occurred. Replace it with observable effects, for example: No other incidents occurred; normal warehouse movement was disrupted for about 20 minutes. The board can then judge significance from facts rather than from the writer's opinion.