Risk levels
How FRA Flow uses Low, Medium, and High risk on observations, and how the risk feeds the report narrative and the action plan.
Every observation in FRA Flow gets one of three risk levels: Low, Medium, or High. The risk drives the report narrative, the action plan priority, and the high-risk-coverage guard before sign-off. This page is short on purpose: the grid is more useful than a discussion.
The three levels
| Level | Meaning | Action plan priority | Typical narrative framing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Note for the record. No action expected, or housekeeping the building owner can fix without a contractor. | Low (12 months) | Mentioned in the section observation paragraph, often in a single sentence. |
| Medium | Action recommended. Real defect or non-compliance, but not life-safety critical. | Medium (3 months) | Discussed in the section observation paragraph and the section comment. Appears in the action plan. |
| High | Action required. Imminent risk to life safety or material non-compliance. | High (1 month) | Lead position in the executive summary. Cited in the section observation. Appears at the top of the action plan. |
How the risk influences the narrative
Three places in the report react to the risk:
- Executive summary. Counts of observations by risk are surfaced (e.g. "two high-risk findings, eight medium, twelve low"), and the top high-risk findings are summarised by location.
- Section observation paragraphs. Order is high-risk first, then medium, then low. So a reviewer scanning the section gets the worst news at the top.
- Action plan. Sorted high → medium → low across the whole property. Reviewers see the must-do items in the first rows.
How the risk influences the guards
Two of the pre-sign-off guards key off risk:
- High-risk-in-narrative. Every observation marked high-risk must be cited in at least one paragraph. If the AI omits a high-risk finding from every paragraph it touches, sign-off blocks until either the paragraph is regenerated to cite it or a reviewer acknowledges the gap.
- Action-trace. Every recommended action must reference an observation. High-risk observations almost always have an action attached; this guard prevents the inverse failure mode where an action floats free of any observation.
Hallucination guards covers the full guard set.
Picking the right level
Two rules of thumb:
- High-risk is reserved for life-safety or material non- compliance. Compromised compartmentation, missing/broken fire doors on escape routes, blocked exits, decisively defective detection. If you are unsure between High and Medium, default to Medium and let the reviewer push it up.
- Low is for things you would mention but not ask the building manager to chase. A scuffed line of paint near a wayfinding sign, a small accumulation of paper in a cupboard. Things that belong on the record so the report is honest, but where Medium would over-state.
Changing the risk later
Tap the observation in the workbench, change the risk in the edit sheet, save. Two things happen:
- The observation card re-renders with the new colour.
- The action plan re-sorts on the next draft.
The previously-generated paragraphs do not auto-rewrite. If you flipped a Medium to High after the draft was already generated, regenerate the relevant section paragraph so the narrative reflects the new severity.
Where to go next
- Photo capture and voice notes for the capture flows that set the risk in the first place.
- Hallucination guards covers the high-risk-in-narrative guard in detail.
- BS 9792:2025 alignment for how the standard expects risk to be presented in the report.