REAL FINDINGS
Anonymised examples based on real document patterns. Details changed to protect client confidentiality.
Case Study 1 — The RAMS That Got Approved Twice
A civils RAMS approved by two reviewers contained two Critical gaps. Found by ComplyScope in 52 seconds.
A civils subcontractor submitted a RAMS for temporary works including a sheet-piled excavation to 3.8 metres on a live road corridor. The document was reviewed and signed off by the site engineer on a Thursday afternoon. The safety advisor reviewed it Friday morning — programme pressure, six other submissions in the inbox — and approved it for commencement the following Monday.
ComplyScope was run on the document as part of a pilot review that same Friday.
It returned seven gaps. Two were Critical.
The first: no temporary works design referenced for the sheet pile installation. For an excavation of that depth adjacent to a live road with buried utilities, a temporary works design signed by a chartered engineer is not optional — it is a legal requirement under CDM Regulations 2015. The RAMS did not mention it.
The second: no traffic management plan referenced or attached. The method statement described works on a live road corridor but contained zero reference to lane closures, traffic control, or pedestrian management. The works would have commenced Monday morning on a live road with no documented traffic management in place.
Both gaps were identified, cited against specific regulations, and returned to the contractor Friday afternoon. A temporary works designer was appointed over the weekend. The RAMS was resubmitted Monday morning and works commenced Tuesday — one day late but compliant.
The alternative: works commence Monday, HSE inspector arrives Wednesday, prohibition notice issued, site shutdown, programme impact measured in weeks not days.
Seven gaps found. Two Critical. Processing time: 52 seconds.
Case Study 2 — The Lift Plan That Described a Different Site
A 22-page lift RAMS for a 50-tonne crane lift passed a 25-minute manual review. ComplyScope identified a Critical ground bearing capacity failure in seconds.
A lifting subcontractor submitted a RAMS for a complex crane lift — a 50-tonne mobile crane, dual lift with a telehandler, installation of a pre-cast concrete staircase core into a live multi-storey residential build.
The document was 22 pages. It had a lift plan attached, plant cert numbers referenced, and appeared thorough. The safety advisor spent 25 minutes reviewing it and raised two minor queries before approving it.
ComplyScope was run on the same document.
Generic RAMS Detection flagged it immediately — High indicator. The reason: the method statement referenced an exclusion zone boundary defined by “the site perimeter fence on the eastern elevation.” The project had no eastern elevation fence. The site was bounded by a live public road on the east with a temporary hoarding. The exclusion zone as described was physically impossible to implement as written.
Further: the lift plan referenced a ground bearing capacity assessment for a specific grid reference that did not correspond to the proposed crane location on the current project. The subcontractor had used a lift plan from a previous project on the same client framework and updated the crane details but not the site-specific ground conditions assessment.
A crane operating on ground that has not been assessed for its specific location and bearing capacity is one of the highest-risk activities in UK construction. The HSE has prosecuted cases arising from exactly this failure mode.
The lift was delayed by four days while a new ground bearing capacity assessment was commissioned and a project-specific lift plan produced. Four days against the programme — but measured against the alternative, not a difficult conversation.
Generic RAMS indicator: High. Critical gap: ground bearing capacity assessment not valid for proposed crane location. Confidence: High.
First review is free. Upload one document — no card required.
Start free trial →ComplyScope identifies gaps in compliance documentation against current UK legislative requirements. It does not constitute approval, sign-off, or verification of compliance. Responsibility for document review and approval remains with the duty holder. ComplyScope operates in accordance with EU AI Act transparency requirements.