Competence belongs to the reviewer, not the login.
Account access proves that a person authenticated. A job title suggests a role. Neither proves that the person is competent for this work, site, hazard profile and decision. HoldPoint therefore treats reviewer selection and competence attestation as part of the approval gate, not as background account metadata.
Attest in context.
At approval, the named person confirms their role, the competence basis required by policy, the exact revision and that blocking findings are resolved. Access alone can never satisfy that gate.
Segregation policy can require the author and approver to be different people. The system enforces the configured rule and records who performed each act; it does not invent organisational independence where none exists.
Contradictions are workflow state, not hidden model context.
A method may name a crane but omit lifting controls. A residual score may conflict with its likelihood and severity. A work-at-height step may omit rescue arrangements. These relationships are checked deterministically before the broader governance review.
A contradiction is attached to the relevant revision and section. Blocking issues stop progression. Advisory issues remain visible without pretending every improvement has the same safety consequence. When an input genuinely conflicts, the system asks for a human resolution rather than allowing AI to choose the convenient fact.
AI focuses attention; it does not return a safe-work verdict.
HoldPoint’s engines draft structured content and identify possible governance gaps. Outputs remain proposals until reviewed. Findings carry severity and context so a reviewer can test them against the work, evidence and applicable policy.
No automatic approval.
AI cannot approve, sign or issue a RAMS. A model response cannot silently clear a blocking finding, attest competence or replace the accountable person’s judgement.
Record the basis, not just the status.
“Approved” is useful only when the record can show who decided, which exact revision they saw, which policy applied, what findings remained, what competence they attested and when the decision occurred. HoldPoint binds those facts to the approval event.
That record supports accountability and later reconstruction. It does not prove the reviewer was correct or that site conditions remained unchanged. Those limits are why assurance and controlled revision continue after approval.