Pressure to downgrade a fire risk rating, and a colleague's copied data

The issues

• The request is to change a professional judgement to suit a commercial relationship, not to correct an error. A risk assessment must reflect the actual risk; a single escape route discharging into a forklift route is a life-safety issue, not a labelling preference.
• Changing 'high' to 'medium' and deleting the sentence would mislead the insurer and potentially the enforcing authority and the people who work there. In some jurisdictions misrepresentation to an insurer is a criminal matter. It would also breach professional codes: act with integrity, be objective, do not mislead, and put public safety above commercial interest.
• The 22% income share is a conflict of interest. It does not change the answer, but it must be recognised, managed and recorded.
• 'Twelve years without a fire' is evidence about the past, not about the adequacy of the escape route. Risk combines likelihood and consequence; a low ignition probability does not make an obstructed escape route acceptable.

How I would respond

1. Refuse, politely and in writing: the rating follows from the findings and I cannot record a conclusion I do not hold.
2. Offer what the client actually needs - a costed, prioritised action plan with interim measures (segregated walkway, barriers, signage, alarm, forklift exclusion during peak picking) that could reduce the risk and justify a re-rating on evidence.
3. Escalate to the most senior director, not only the operations director, and set out the legal and insurance consequences of the current arrangement.
4. Record the request and my response in the file.
5. If the client insists on submitting an altered report, refuse to sign it and withdraw from that assessment. My name goes on it.

Reasoning

Independence is the only reason an external assessment is worth buying. Conceding once turns every future judgement into a negotiation, and the people at risk never learn the real position.

Establish the facts first

• Do not assume fraud. Copied tables are sometimes a template error, a copy-paste from a previous report, or a mistake made under time pressure. Check the source file, the raw data, the laboratory certificates and the site records. Was any sampling done at this site at all?
• Ask the colleague first, privately and without accusation. Their account is evidence, and how they respond matters.

Correct the record

• The client is relying on a report that may contain data from another site. They must be told and given a corrected report. This is the same duty not to mislead that applies to my own work.
• Inform the colleague's line manager and the quality lead, open a documented internal review, and preserve the original files rather than overwriting them.

Proportionality

• Template or transcription error: correct it, retrain, add a checking step, and audit a sample of the colleague's other reports.
• Deliberate falsification: a serious integrity matter that may need to go to the professional body and, depending on jurisdiction, the regulator. The colleague must be heard and dealt with fairly, but the client's reliance on false data cannot continue.

Escalation

Internal first, to the highest appropriate level. If the organisation does nothing while the client remains exposed, external disclosure becomes justified as a last resort, limited to what is necessary and documented.

Reasoning

Falsified monitoring is worse than no monitoring because it creates false assurance. Quietly fixing the paperwork without telling the client simply moves the risk onto someone else.

Handling the boundary

• Ammonia refrigeration is a high-hazard system: toxic, flammable within a range of concentrations, and unforgiving of poor emergency design. Without ammonia experience I cannot sign off the arrangements as competent, and saying nothing would misrepresent my competence to the client.
• I would say so in writing, explain what I can and cannot do, and propose how the work will be covered: bring in a process-safety or refrigeration specialist, define who signs what, and remain as project lead or reviewer if that adds value. If the client will not accept that, I decline the work rather than lend my name to it.

Development plan

1. Gap analysis against the role I am being asked to fill and against my professional body's competence framework.
2. Formal learning: an ammonia or process-safety course and emergency planning training.
3. Supervised practice: work alongside a competent specialist on two or three installations, with my work reviewed.
4. Mentoring and reflective practice: a log of decisions, what I got wrong and what I would do differently.
5. Record it as CPD with dates, evidence and a review point, and reassess competence before taking sole sign-off.

Reasoning

Competence is not a permanent attribute; it is specific to the task. The professional obligation is to recognise the limit early, disclose it, and close the gap deliberately - not to learn at the client's risk.