01
It probes conditions, never fault
Every follow-up is written to ask what was true around the person. A question that invites blame produces a shorter answer, and a shorter answer is a worse record.
The AI Interviewer
A form collects an answer. An interview finds the next question.
Field crew open a link and describe what happened in their own words. The Interviewer asks the follow-ups a good safety manager would ask — the ones that surface the conditions around the incident rather than the fault behind it.
Field intake · submitter viewNo login. Works on the phone in their pocket.
AI Interviewer
Take me through what happened, in your own words. Start wherever makes sense.
You
Backed into the bay door coming off a post move. No damage to the patient compartment, just the door frame.
AI Interviewer
Thanks — that's clear. Was anyone spotting you, and if not, what was going on that made that the reasonable call at the time?
You
No spotter. My partner was already off shift and we were late for the next post. Honestly we do it that way most nights.
AI Interviewer
That's useful, and it isn't a criticism — it sounds like the post move and the shift change collide. How long has it been done that way, and is it something supervisors are aware of?
Type your answer…Send
Why it asks again
The second question is where the information is.
Nobody withholds the useful detail on purpose. It just isn’t what the question asked for. “Describe the incident” gets you an event; asking what made the shortcut reasonable gets you the condition that will still be there next quarter.
02
It follows the gaps, not a script
The next question depends on what the last answer left open. A crew who already explained the lighting is not asked about the lighting again.
03
It stops when it has enough
Intake ends at initial fact-finding — usually three to six exchanges. It is an interview until a supervisor elevates it, and that distinction is kept in the record.
04
The pass is logged
Which probes ran, which branches were taken, and what the model chose not to ask are written to the decision log, so an investigation can be audited rather than trusted.
The same incident, two ways
What the form kept, and what the interview kept.
Your current form
- Incident type
- Vehicle / Rig accident
- Contributing factor
- Spatial awareness
- Narrative
- "Backed into bay door coming off a post move."
- Corrective action
- Counselled on backing procedure
Closes cleanly. Names the person. Recurs next quarter.
After the interview
- Spotter unavailableProcess
- Partner off shiftSystem
- Time pressure at shift changeScene
- Practice described as normalProcess
- Backing the vehicleCrew
Five conditions, each traceable to the crew’s own words, each able to join a pattern later. SPECS dimensions in the right column.
Objections, answered
The two questions every safety director asks.
Will my crews actually use it?
It opens from a link, needs no login, and works on a phone at the end of a shift. Talking is faster than a form, and the interview is explicitly not accusatory — which is the part crews notice first.
Can it be used against them?
The Interviewer captures conditions, not conclusions — and it never grades a person. It stays an interview until a supervisor elevates it, and every pass is logged, so what was asked and what was not is a matter of record rather than recollection.
Next
The analysis that reads the answers →
One incident is a story. Six hundred are a structure. What the second instrument does with everything the first one captured.
Or
See a full sample report →
Five sheets in the shape of a delivered diagnostic, with every count shown over the population it came from.