02 / Methodology
Patent AU + US · Consequence-weighted
The Consequential Risk Score — consequence-weighted, not just exposure-weighted.
MSD risk is multi-factorial — it emerges from how load, posture, repetition, duration and force combine, against recovery, environment and how the work is organised. The score integrates those factors, then weights them by injury severity, recovery pathway and claims-cost data — so it reflects how consequential the exposure is, not just how exposed one body region is.
The premise
A problem made of many factors needs more than one number.
A score that measures one axis in isolation misreads a risk built from many. The Consequential Risk Score integrates multiple exposure and context factors first, then applies consequence weighting — so the result reflects which task is going to hurt someone, not just which angle crossed a threshold.
A risk score is only useful if it changes a decision.
What goes in
Three streams of input.
01
Biomechanical exposure
Five IMU sensors capture what the body actually does — load, posture, repetition, duration and force — in the real task.
02
Task context
Assessor inputs describe the conditions the sensors can't see: the environment, the tools, how the work is organised.
03
Consequence weighting
The methodology weights raw exposure by injury severity, recovery pathway and claims-cost data — the proprietary core.
What the score is
- A triage instrument — which tasks to look at first
- A decision input — where to spend a control budget
- A validation instrument — did a change actually work
- A defensible record — regulator- and insurer-ready evidence
What it isn't
- A medical diagnosis or clinical decision-making system
- A fault or liability determination
- A drop-in substitute for NIOSH or any single index
- A worker-coaching or monitoring tool
Relationship to existing methods
Built to sit alongside the frameworks you already trust.
The framework is openly defendable and aligns with established assessment methods and standards; the weighting and calibration are trade-secret-protected.
- REBA
- RULA
- MAC
- ART
- RAPP
- HSG60
- ISO 31000
- ISO 11228-1
- Safe Work Australia
Validation & research
Tested with researchers, not just in-house.
The methodology has been examined and applied with research partners including the University of Waterloo (CRE-MSD), Cranfield University, and EML — alongside a practitioner network applying it in the field.
Known limitations
Where the score stops — stated plainly.
- Lower-limb postures are bounded by what REBA-style frameworks capture.
- Scores are not directly comparable to a NIOSH lifting index — different instruments, different questions.
- Calibration reflects the cohorts measured to date; new settings are validated as they're deployed.
- The score describes task risk, not an individual worker's injury prediction.