What Should AI Review First in a Subcontractor Risk Assessment?

Key takeaway On-Sitehub's AI-assisted risk assessment review reads each subcontractor's assessment items and classifies them as acceptable, requiring improvement, or inadequate. It checks whether the accident type, hazard, control measure, and risk rating fit the work context, then presents its reasoning and proposed revisions. The safety manager compares the current values with the AI suggestions and applies only the changes that are needed. The responsible person retains the final decision and completes the review.

When many subcontractor risk assessments arrive at once, safety managers often find themselves reading similar statements repeatedly.

They need to verify that the accident type matches the stated hazard, that the control measure can actually reduce the risk, and that the assigned risk rating is appropriate. Reviewing the main work category, detailed task, work location, and number of workers at the same time becomes even harder when every document uses a different format or wording.

As the number of items grows, so does the chance of overlooking something. The order in which items are reviewed may also vary depending on the reviewer's experience and habits.

AI does not approve or authorize the assessment. Its role in the first-pass review is to identify items that need attention and organize the evidence and suggestions that a safety manager should compare.

The risk assessment review workflow

Depending on the site configuration, On-Sitehub allows subcontractor risk assessment data to be uploaded from Excel or entered directly on screen. Some templates can contain data for several subcontractors in one upload and then be separated into individual documents for each subcontractor.

This example screen is based on the structure of the product's preliminary-review document list. The site, subcontractor, document, revision, and item counts are all fictional.

On mobile, swipe horizontally to view the complete workflow.

1. Submission and AI review

2. Comparison and completion by the responsible person

For each item, the AI considers the following questions together:

• Does the accident type match the stated hazard?
• Is the hazard specific enough for the main work category, detailed task, work location, and number of workers?
• Can the proposed control measure meaningfully reduce the risk and be carried out on site?
• Is the risk rating appropriate in light of likelihood and severity?

After the review, each item receives one of three classifications:

• Acceptable: Based on the submitted document, no revision is suggested for this item.
• Requiring improvement: The overall direction is reasonable, but details need to be added, controls are missing, or the risk rating needs adjustment.
• Inadequate: The accident type and hazard do not align, or the control measure is ineffective. The item needs to be rewritten.

These classifications do not determine whether a legal requirement has been violated or guarantee that a site control is adequate. They are supporting opinions based on the submitted content, focusing on specificity, consistency, and practical applicability.

Classification and proposed revisions

In addition to the classification and review notes, the AI can suggest revisions such as:

• A different accident type
• An adjusted risk rating
• A more complete control measure

The safety manager can compare the current value and the AI-proposed value side by side. Suggestions are not accepted as an all-or-nothing package. The reviewer can selectively apply only the accident type, risk rating, or control measure that needs to change. Before applying a suggestion, the reviewer can check the before-and-after values, and unsaved changes can be reverted.

When reviewing many items, the reviewer can filter items classified as requiring improvement or inadequate, then select the items and fields to update in a batch. The original text is not changed until a person selects the changes and saves them.

This fictional case is based on the product's comparison screen. The work details and AI suggestions are for explanation only and do not represent actual site data or assessment results.

Typical review examples

The following examples illustrate how the feature approaches a review. Actual classifications and suggestions may vary according to the submitted document and the review criteria configured for each site.

Mobile crane operations

Suppose the only control measure for a mobile crane operation is "restrict access within the working radius."

The AI may flag the item because it does not explain who will control access, where the boundary will be established, or how the restriction will be enforced. The safety manager then checks the equipment specifications, work location, and vehicle and pedestrian movements planned for the day before deciding which controls should actually be implemented.

Work at height

If a work-at-height item lists only "wear a safety harness," the control may not be specific enough for the fall hazard.

The AI can review whether the accident type matches the hazard, whether the work location is described precisely, whether the control can be carried out, and whether the risk rating is suitable. It can then suggest areas that need improvement.

Hot work

If a hot-work assessment lists only "place a fire extinguisher nearby," the control may be too narrow for the hazard.

The AI can assess whether the controls are sufficient for the stated hazard and suggest additional points that need confirmation. The safety manager makes the actual decision after checking the work area, nearby equipment, and materials in use.

Re-reviewing changed items

When the responsible person edits an item after the AI review, the document status changes to Re-review required. Instead of analyzing the entire document again, the system can review only the changed items. When an AI suggestion is selectively applied, the applied value and its source remain in the history.

The review screen shows the number of items in each classification (Acceptable, Requiring improvement, and Inadequate) and lets the user filter by classification. It also provides an overall review summary and key observations for the full document. Results can be exported as a printable AI review report or an Excel file for sharing and recordkeeping.

Managing completed versions

For sites where the feature is enabled, the responsible person can mark a preliminary review as complete after the AI review. A separate completed version is created, and the latest completed version for each subcontractor can be viewed in the "Risk Assessment DB" section of the toolbox meeting record.

Completion is different from automatic approval by AI. The AI classifies items and proposes possible revisions, but the responsible person decides which suggestions to apply and whether the preliminary review is complete.

People make the final decision

A written risk assessment cannot contain every condition that matters. Weather, worker experience, equipment condition, simultaneous operations, and site traffic may all exist outside the document.

Even when the AI improves the wording, it does not verify actual installations or working conditions on site. When the submitted information is incomplete or incorrect, the analysis will also be limited. The AI's first-pass review should therefore be used as a starting point for confirming:

• Which submitted content supports each review note
• Whether a suggested control can actually be applied to the work location and equipment
• Whether an adjusted risk rating matches the site's criteria
• Whether conditions outside the document require additional checks

An item classified as acceptable is not exempt from site verification. It must be checked again when the work category, equipment, location, or working conditions change. AI classification helps prioritize the review; it does not reduce its required scope.

Using AI for an initial review can reduce repetitive checking and organize possible improvements in advance. Safety managers can then focus more of their attention on site verification and the final judgments that require human knowledge of the actual work environment.

This feature does not replace the site's risk assessment procedure or the responsibilities of its participants. The responsible people must conduct, verify, and record the assessment according to the laws and assigned roles that apply to the workplace. AI review results are supporting information for that process. The handling and retention rules for subcontractor documents should also be confirmed before deployment.

Site-specific scope

The Excel template, upload method, preliminary-review completion process, and use of completed versions may differ by site configuration. The AI review perspective and three-level classification criteria can also be configured to match operational policies. Confirm the available scope and implementation schedule during deployment planning.

Explore On-Sitehub