Keep the investigation moving without lowering the standard.
Raven keeps the case together when the team returns to its day jobs. The evidence stays in context, the gaps stay visible, and the next work is ready when the investigation resumes.
Start with the evidence, including what is missing.
- Photos, documents, logs, and readings attached where they belong in the case
- Missing items surfaced early, so collection is planned and tracked, not discovered late
- A time-ordered chronology with the evidence embedded in context
- Suggested evidence and questions keep their source beside them
Illustrative scenario: a recurring transfer-line flange leak, the same scenario used across this site.
Walk into the investigation with the case already taking shape.
Evidence, including what is missing
Photos, documents, logs, and readings stay with the case. Missing items surface early enough to go and find them.
Chronology with context attached
What happened and what was found appear in order, with the evidence beside the moment it explains.
Witness and interview questions
Raven prepares the questions this event needs, so each interview starts further ahead.
Similar events, with why they match
Related events appear beside the case, with the equipment, activity, or failure mode that connects them.
More than one causal path
More than one explanation can be explored from the evidence, with barrier and safeguard questions for each path.
Recommendation quality checks
Raven checks whether a recommendation addresses this event and its causes before it becomes an action.
Raven drafts the investigation in your format.
- Standard methods run on the same evidence: 5-Why, Fishbone, Contributing Factors, Bow-Tie
- System, physical, and human factors analysed with the reasoning written out
- The report drafted in your plant's own format, ready for the team to work
- Dual approval before release, and lessons prepared from the closed case
Could the gasket have passed inspection and still failed?
Possible. If the torque record is current, consider thermal cycling on the transfer line. Added as an alternative line under Hypothesis B.
based on 2 similar past events + public incident learningsWhat are the most likely causes of heat exchanger tube ruptures?
Most documented cases trace to tube-side corrosion, vibration-induced fatigue, or overpressure during transient operation. Inspection intervals are the common gap.
sources: public investigation reports · industry guidance- 1 Oil on walkway
- 2 Flange leak, T-105 transfer line
- 3 Gasket condition at last service?
- Torque sequence in SOP not followed
- Thermal cycling on transfer line
The plant's history works on every new case.
- Similar past events appear alongside the new one, with the reason they match
- Repeat patterns across equipment, areas, and causes get flagged, not filed
- Weak closures resurface when the same risk comes back
Flange leak, transfer line · Area 3
Flange seep, transfer bay
same equipment typeOil sheen below pipe rack
same area · similar causeDrip at pump P-22 coupling
same category, night shift3rd similar event in this area in 90 days
People make the calls that carry accountability.
Draft → review → decide
Raven prepares the work and keeps the supporting evidence visible. Your team decides classification, severity, accepted causes, recommendations, residual risk, and closure.
The right depth for the event
Lower-severity events can move quickly. High-potential and major events take the formal path, with a sponsored team and deeper analysis matched to the event.
Keep your EHS system. Add a better investigation.
Your current system can remain the formal record. Raven helps the team find what is missing, compare earlier events, work through possible causes, and improve the actions that follow.
Bring rigor and speed to every investigation.
Bring one investigation workflow. We will show how Raven keeps the case moving in your format.