What this is
What is a post control reassessment?
What is a post control reassessment?
It is a repeat assessment of a task that has already been assessed and then modified, carried out with the same method under the same conditions so the two scores can be compared. It records what control was implemented, what level of the hierarchy it reached, whether it is still in place and being used, what the task now scores, and whether the residual risk is acceptable. The output is a matched score pair plus an effectiveness judgement, not a fresh baseline.
How is it different from checking a corrective action is complete?
Completion asks whether the thing was done. Effectiveness asks whether the exposure changed. A control can be installed exactly as specified, signed off, and still leave the risk where it was, because the dominant factor in the original score was reach distance and the aid addressed weight. The reassessment is the only record that distinguishes the two, which is why ISO 45001 cl.10.2 requires the effectiveness of corrective action to be reviewed and not merely its closure.
Why 30 to 90 days after the change?
Earlier than about 30 days and you are measuring the novelty period: people are still being shown the aid, the supervisor is still watching, and nothing has yet drifted. Later than about 90 days and other things have changed too, so the score difference stops being attributable to the control. The window is a compromise between letting the new method settle and keeping the comparison clean, and the sensible practice is one reassessment inside the window plus a lighter persistence check later.
Scope
When is a post control reassessment required?
This template is the verification step for one control on one task, tied to one original assessment. Its usual misuse is being stretched into either a programme-level review or a new baseline, both of which have their own instruments and answer different questions.
Use this template when
- A control has been implemented on a task that already carries an assessment, and 30 to 90 days have passed
- A corrective action is due to close and the effectiveness of the control has to be evidenced rather than asserted
- Discomfort reports have continued on a task that was supposedly fixed, and the control needs testing rather than defending
- A solution is being considered for transfer to other tasks or sites and needs proof it worked where it was first installed
- An equipment business case relies on a demonstrated reduction, and the before and after pair is the evidence
Do not use it for
- Ergonomic Control Effectiveness Review, which looks across many controls for pattern and programme performance rather than testing one
- Assessment Comparison Review, which compares assessments of different tasks or populations rather than the same task before and after
- Task Ergonomic Assessment, which is the right record where the task itself has changed and there is no valid baseline left to compare against
- Rotation Effectiveness Review and Screening Follow Up Log, which own the verification of rotation schedules and screening actions respectively
- Ergonomic Cost Benefit Record, which turns the demonstrated reduction into a financial case and should not be smuggled into the assessment
Compliance mapping
Which ISO 45001 cl.9.1 requirements does this satisfy?
Regulation rarely names reassessment as a separate instrument. It arrives through two general duties: keeping an assessment valid when circumstances change, and checking that the measures taken actually control the risk. Both are enforceable, and neither is satisfied by an action closure note.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Monitoring and measurement of the effectiveness of operational controls against defined criteria | Reassessment |
| ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Review of the effectiveness of corrective action taken, not only its completion | Outcome |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Risk reduction following the hierarchy of controls, with the level actually achieved evidenced | What changed |
| ISO 45001 cl.8.1.3 | Management of change, including hazards introduced by the change itself | Worker experience |
| ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Consultation and participation of non-managerial workers in evaluating controls | Worker experience |
| MHOR 1992 reg.4(2) | Assessment to be reviewed where there is a significant change or reason to suspect it is no longer valid | Header |
| Model WHS Regulations reg.38 | Control measures to be reviewed and revised, including where a control is not controlling the risk | Outcome |
What it does not cover
- Programme-level effectiveness review, which asks whether the ergonomics programme is working across many controls and belongs in the Ergonomic Control Effectiveness Review and the annual review.
- Corrective action closure, which is a CAPA record with its own owner, verification step and audit trail; this assessment supplies its evidence but does not replace it.
- A new baseline assessment, which is what the task needs when the work itself has changed, since a reassessment against a superseded method or task description compares nothing.
- Health surveillance and symptom follow-up, which track the person rather than the exposure; a falling posture score is not evidence that an existing injury is resolving.
- The business case, which draws on the score pair but has to carry cost, downtime, throughput and payback in the cost benefit record rather than in the assessment.
Global
Post Control Reassessment requirements by country
Almost every regime obliges an employer to review controls and to revisit an assessment when it stops being valid. What varies is whether effectiveness is named explicitly, whether a fixed review interval is imposed, and whether worker involvement in the review is a legal requirement.
OSH Act Section 5(a)(1); OSHA ergonomics guidelines by sector
No general ergonomics standard since the 2001 repeal. Programme evaluation appears in sector guidance rather than in a rule.
Enforcement runs through the General Duty Clause, where an ineffective abatement is treated much like no abatement, so the reassessment is the document showing the hazard was actually addressed.
Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, reg.4(2); MHSWR 1999 reg.3(3)
Duty to review an assessment where there is reason to suspect it is no longer valid or the operations have significantly changed.
Implementing a control is itself a significant change, so the reassessment is the legal review of the original assessment and not an optional extra step.
Directive 89/391/EEC art.6(3); Directive 90/269/EEC on manual handling of loads
Preventive measures must be adapted to changing circumstances and aimed at improving existing situations.
Member state implementations generally read this as a continuing obligation, which means a control left unverified is a gap in the evaluation of risks rather than a closed action.
BC OHS Regulation Part 4 (Ergonomics MSI Requirements); CSA Z1004
Explicit duty to monitor the effectiveness of MSI risk controls, with worker and committee involvement throughout.
British Columbia is one of the few places where effectiveness monitoring is written into the regulation itself, so the reassessment record is directly inspectable.
Model WHS Regulations reg.38 and reg.60; hazardous manual tasks code of practice
Control measures must be reviewed and revised, including where a control is not controlling the risk so far as is reasonably practicable.
Regulation 38 lists the review triggers, and a control that has not reduced exposure is one of them, which makes an unverified control a live regulatory exposure.
ISO 45001 cl.9.1 and cl.10.2
Effectiveness of operational controls to be monitored, and effectiveness of corrective action to be reviewed.
Certification auditors sample closed actions and ask for the effectiveness evidence, and a closure note with no reassessment behind it is a routine finding.
How to complete it
How to complete a post control reassessment, step by step
The mechanics are simple: two numbers and a handful of choices. What decides whether the record survives scrutiny is a small set of judgements the form asks for in one word and which deserve a sentence each.
Same method, same conditions, same assessor are three separate questions because they fail separately. A different assessor changes the score by inter-rater variation alone; different conditions change the exposure itself. Where any of them could not be reproduced, answer honestly and add the direction of the bias, because a partly comparable reassessment that admits it is worth more than a clean-looking one that does not.
Still in place today and being used consistently come before the numbers, because if the answer is no the score is irrelevant and the finding is about implementation rather than design. Aids get pushed into a corner, adjustable benches settle at one height, and a failed component gets isolated by maintenance without anyone connecting that work order to an ergonomics control. Ask what stopped it being used; the barriers to use text is what the next control decision is built on.
The form asks how many workers were asked and whether they report improvement, and the two answers together are a validity test on the score. An improvement of three points with nobody reporting any difference usually means the dominant factor in the original score was not the factor the control addressed. Treat that as a reason to reopen the assessment, not as a discrepancy to be smoothed over in the outcome section.
Control effective, residual risk acceptable and any new risk introduced are three distinct conclusions and they can point in different directions: a conveyor that removes the lift and introduces a sustained reach is effective, has a new risk and a marginal residual. Where the residual is marginal or a new risk has appeared, further action is required and a CAPA reference belongs on the record. Signing off a marginal residual with no action is the version of this record that gets quoted back after an injury.
What auditors find
Most common post control reassessment findings
Reassessment findings divide neatly. Either the record does not exist for controls that were closed, or it exists and the comparison inside it does not hold up.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Corrective action closed on delivery or installation, with no effectiveness evidence behind it. | ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Make the reassessment record the closure gate for any ergonomics CAPA, not a follow-on task. |
| Reassessment carried out with a different method from the original, so the two scores are not comparable. | ISO 45001 cl.6.1.2.2 | Record the original method on the baseline and reject a reassessment that does not match it. |
| Conditions differed materially, typically lighter product, slower line or a different operator, and the difference is unrecorded. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Answer same conditions honestly and state the direction of the bias in the record. |
| Control level achieved recorded as engineering when what was delivered was training and a briefing. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.2 | Describe the control implemented in concrete terms and let the level follow from the description. |
| Control no longer in place or no longer used at the time of reassessment, and the record still concludes effective. | Model WHS Regulations reg.38 | Treat a persistence failure as an ineffective control and raise action on the barriers to use. |
| Workers not consulted; improvement asserted from the score alone. | ISO 45001 cl.5.4 | Record how many workers were asked and what they said, by role rather than by name where consent matters. |
| New risk introduced by the control not assessed, for example reach, static holding or slip risk from an aid. | ISO 45001 cl.8.1.3 | Route any new risk into management of change and update the parent assessment, not just this record. |
| Reassessment run inside a fortnight of implementation, during the period of maximum supervisory attention. | ISO 45001 cl.9.1.1 | Hold the reassessment to the stated window and schedule a later persistence check separately. |
| Residual risk marked marginal, further action marked no, and no CAPA raised. | ISO 45001 cl.10.2 | Make a marginal residual raise an action automatically rather than leaving it to assessor discretion. |
| Effective, transferable solution never applied to the identical task on the adjacent line or sister site. | ISO 45001 cl.7.4 | Where solution transferable is yes, raise the transfer as a named action with an owner and a date. |
Case in point
Case in point: the control that worked for six weeks
A chilled foods site assessed case packing at the end of a line. The original assessment scored the task in the high band, with trunk flexion the dominant factor because finished cases were built at pallet height. A scissor lift table was specified and installed, and a reassessment was run at five weeks by the original assessor. The score improved by four points, the band moved from high to medium, three workers said it was better, and the CAPA closed with the reassessment attached. The site used the score pair in a capital submission for four more tables.
Fourteen months later discomfort reports on that line returned to their pre-control rate. A walk of the area found the lift table at its lowest position with a maintenance tag on the foot control. The pedal had failed around month four, a fitter had isolated it as a trip and pinch hazard pending a spare, the spare was never ordered, and packers had gone back to building cases at pallet height. Nothing in the work order named the table as an ergonomics control, so nothing in that chain reached the ergonomics programme.
The reassessment had been correct. It was also a single photograph of a six-week-old arrangement, and the record contained nothing that would ever ask the question again. The corrective action was not a better reassessment; it was tagging the table as a control asset so a work order against it raises a persistence check, and adding a lighter re-check at twelve months to every reassessment concluding effective.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
5 sections
- Reference
- ERG-014
- Archetype
- Assessment
- Record ID
- ERG-2026-000
- Scoring
- Score change
- Direction
- High is good
- Singleton
- No
- Basis
- ISO 45001 cl.9.1
- Links
- Links original Assessment, CAPA
- Tags
- Ergonomics, Verification
- Sections
- 5
- Fields
- 47
- Follow up fields
- 3
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 4
Header
14 fieldsAssessment ID*
Auto sequence. Format ERG-2026-00000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Status*
Drives who this goes to next.
- Planned2 pts
- In progress2 pts
- Complete3 pts
- Deferred0 pts
- Open0 pts
- Closed3 pts
- Overdue0 pts
Date and Time*
Completed By*
Site*
Site ID*
Format SITE-000.
Links to FDN-001 Site ID
Area
The area within the site.
Exact Location
Drop a pin for anything hard to find.
Task*
Job ID*
Format JOB-000.
Links to FDN-004 Job Task ID
Prove It Worked
Controls are assumed effective far too often. Reassessing with the same method, under the same conditions, is the only way to know whether anything actually changed.
Original Assessment ID*
Links to ERG-006 Assessment ID
Controls Implemented Date*
Weeks Since Implementation*
What changed
4 fieldsControls Implemented*
Control Level Achieved*
- Eliminated4 pts
- Engineering3 pts
- Aid provided3 pts
- Administrative1 pt
- Training only0 pts
Implemented As Designed*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Still In Place Today*
Aids get moved, guards get removed and adjustable benches drift back to one height.
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Reassessment
9 fieldsSame Method Used*
- Yes3 pts
- No0 pts
Same Conditions*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Same Assessor
- Yes3 pts
- No1 pt
Original Score*
New Score*
Score Change*
Original Risk Band*
New Risk Band*
- Low3 pts
- Medium2 pts
- High1 pt
- Very high0 pts
Band Improved*
- Yes3 pts
- No change1 pt
- Worse0 pts
Worker experience
6 fieldsWorkers Asked*
Workers Report Improvement*
A score that improved while workers say nothing feels different means you measured the wrong thing.
- Yes3 pts
- Some1 pt
- No0 pts
Discomfort Reports Since*
Control Being Used Consistently*
- Yes3 pts
- Sometimes1 pt
- No0 pts
Barriers To Use
Any New Risk Introduced*
- No3 pts
- Some1 pt
- Significant0 pts
Outcome
14 fieldsControl Effective*
- Yes3 pts
- Partly1 pt
- No0 pts
Residual Risk Acceptable*
- Yes3 pts
- Marginal1 pt
- No0 pts
Further Action Required*
- No3 pts
- Yes0 pts
Solution Transferable*
- Yes3 pts
- No1 pt
Applied Elsewhere
Feeds Effectiveness Review*
Action Required*
Raise the action record, then enter its reference here.
- No2 pts
- Yes0 pts
Priority
- High0 pts
- Medium1 pt
- Low3 pts
CAPA ID
Format CAPA-2026-00000.
Links to FDN-014 CAPA ID
Action Owner
Assessor*
Signature*
Supervisor*
Second Signature*
ERG-014 · record IDs look like ERG-2026-000 · Links original Assessment, CAPA
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The reassessment itself is twenty minutes of work. What fails around it is the window nobody watches, the maintenance job that quietly disabled the control, and the verified solution never applied to the identical task next door.
Holds each reassessment against its original assessment, enforces the 30 to 90 day window, and blocks a comparison where the method or conditions do not match.
Watches closed ergonomics actions for missing effectiveness evidence and raises the reassessment before the action ages out of anyone's attention.
Registers implemented controls as assets, so a fault, isolation or modification against a lift table or aid raises a persistence check on the reassessment.
Carries the residual risk and any change-induced hazard back into the risk register and the CAPA record rather than leaving it inside the assessment.
This template lives in KnowErgo — ergonomics. Task assessment, video posture analysis, rotation and workstation redesign.
Meet KnowErgo→Glossary
Post Control Reassessment definitions and key terms
- Effectiveness verification
- Evidence that a control reduced the exposure, as distinct from evidence that it was implemented.
- Score change
- The difference between the original and reassessed scores for the same task under the same method, which is meaningful only where the method and conditions were held constant.
- Risk band
- The banded interpretation of a method score, from low to very high. What most decisions are actually taken on, because it survives small scoring differences.
- Control level achieved
- Where the delivered control sits in the hierarchy: eliminated, engineering, aid provided, administrative, or training only. The best predictor of whether the improvement will last.
- Control decay
- The gradual return of an exposure as an implemented control stops being used, drifts from its setting, fails without replacement, or is defeated because it slows the task.
- Confounded comparison
- A before and after pair in which something other than the control differed, so the score change cannot be attributed to the intervention.
- Residual risk
- The exposure remaining with the control in place and working, which is what determines whether the task is acceptable rather than merely improved.
- Solution transfer
- Applying a verified control to other tasks with the same dominant factor, which is where an ergonomics programme gets most of its return.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about post control reassessment
Does the same assessor really have to do it?+
Preferably, and the form treats a different assessor as a partial weakness rather than a disqualification. Inter-rater variation on posture methods is large enough to swamp a modest control effect, so a change of assessor turns a small improvement into noise. Where the original assessor has left, have the new one rescore the original footage first, then reassess, so both readings come from one pair of eyes.
The score improved but the workers say nothing is different. Which do we believe?+
The workers, then find out why the score moved. Almost always the control addressed a factor that was not driving the exposure: weight reduced when the problem was reach, or posture improved for the lift while the sustained holding that causes the ache went untouched. Treat the mismatch as a defect in the original assessment's dominant factor, not a reporting problem.
Can a reassessment close the corrective action?+
It should permit closure, not be the closure. Keep the CAPA as the action record with its own owner and date, and attach the reassessment as the effectiveness evidence, because that is the structure ISO 45001 cl.10.2 expects and the one that survives an audit sample. Where the reassessment concludes partly effective or marginal, the action stays open with a revised control rather than closing with a note.
What if the control made something else worse?+
Then the reassessment has found a change-induced hazard and the record has to say so. A trolley that removes carrying and introduces pushing on a poor floor has moved the exposure rather than reduced it. Answer the new risk question truthfully, raise the action, and update the parent assessment, because a new risk left sitting inside a reassessment marked effective is how controls become the cause of the next claim.
Do we need a reassessment for every control, including small ones?+
For every control raised against an assessed exposure, yes, though the depth should scale. A repositioned parts bin justifies a short reassessment on the same method; a redesigned workstation justifies a full one. What is not defensible is a tier of small controls that never get verified, because those are the ones that quietly decay and they usually make up most of the programme by count.
How long should we keep checking after a successful reassessment?+
Long enough to catch decay, which for anything mechanical or behavioural means one further look at around twelve months. The practical version is not a second full reassessment but a persistence check: is it there, is it used, are discomfort reports still down. Link the control to the maintenance and change records so failure or modification raises that check without anyone having to remember.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Used together in Ergonomics and MSD Prevention
Discomfort Report
Lets a worker report aches, pain or discomfort early, before it becomes an injury
Body Part Symptom Survey
Maps where in the body workers are experiencing discomfort, across a team or area
MSD Injury Report
Records a diagnosed musculoskeletal injury, including affected body part and suspected task
Early Intervention Record
Records the actions taken when discomfort is reported, before it becomes an injury
MSD Trend Review
Reviews discomfort reports and MSD injuries across areas and tasks
Task Ergonomic Assessment
Assesses a work task using video, applying the methods you configure such as RULA, REBA or WISHA
More in Task Assessments
Task Ergonomic Assessment
Assesses a work task using video, applying the methods you configure such as RULA, REBA or WISHA
Lifting Task Assessment
Assesses a lifting task from video, running the NIOSH lifting equation alongside a whole body posture method
Push and Pull Assessment
Assesses pushing, pulling and carrying tasks from video, using Snook tables alongside a posture method
Repetitive Task Assessment
Assesses highly repetitive work from video, focusing on upper limb loading and cycle time
Sustained Posture Assessment
Assesses tasks held in one position for long periods, such as inspection, monitoring or fine assembly
Manual Handling Assessment
A general manual handling assessment covering load, posture, frequency and environment
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- ISO 45001:2018 clauses 8.1.2, 8.1.3, 9.1.1 and 10.2
- Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, regulation 4 (GB), as amended
- Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, regulation 3(3) (GB)
- Model WHS Regulations regulations 38 and 60, and the hazardous manual tasks code of practice (Australia)
- BC Occupational Health and Safety Regulation Part 4, Ergonomics (MSI) Requirements
- Council Directive 90/269/EEC on manual handling, and Directive 89/391/EEC article 6
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.