// Method 8 — demo · Formative Health Report (Operating Model Health playback).
// De-branded reproduction of the Talison OMH executive playback STRUCTURE,
// populated with Gold Fields critical-risk content. Driven by one REPORT dict
// (same shape as the Talison fixture.CONTENT) so it's fully swappable.
const { Ico, I, PageHead, AISum, Gauge, useNav } = window;
const REPORT = {
deck: {
client: 'Gold Fields',
function_name: 'Critical Risk Management — Operating Model Health',
subtitle: 'Formative Health Assessment · Executive Summary',
site: 'St Ives leadership team',
date: '9 June 2026',
prepared_by: 'Method 8',
},
overall: {
health_pct: 53, avg_5: 3.4,
categories: [
{ name: 'Understanding', pct: 82, avg_5: 4.0 },
{ name: 'Alignment', pct: 41, avg_5: 2.9 },
{ name: 'Performance Belief', pct: 80, avg_5: 4.0 },
],
session_quality: { pct: 94, avg_5: 4.6,
note: '17 of 18 participants rated the session high-quality and well-facilitated.' },
key_findings: (
'Critical controls are well understood (82%) and the team believes the system works when ' +
"it's followed (80%). But alignment on how controls are executed in the field sits at just 41%, " +
'dragging overall health to 53%. The gap concentrates in field verification — documented ' +
'sign-off has outrun what is actually checked at the face.'
),
},
understanding: {
statement: '"I understand the critical controls and how they apply to my work."',
before_pct: 31, before_avg: 3.2,
after_pct: 84, after_avg: 3.9,
before_note: 'Only 31% agreed or strongly agreed before the session.',
after_note: 'After the session, 84% agreed or strongly agreed — a clear lift in shared understanding.',
insight: (
'The workshop lifted understanding of the critical-risk model by +53pp. The expectations are ' +
'clear once articulated — the challenge is embedding them into day-to-day field execution, not ' +
'explaining them.'
),
},
elements: [
{ num: 1, name: 'Critical controls defined', health_pct: 78, avg_5: 4.1, distribution: [0, 1, 3, 8, 6],
statement: '"Our critical controls are clearly defined for every material risk."',
summary: 'The high-water mark of the session. Controls are well defined on paper and ownership is mostly clear. The work now is what happens after definition.',
opportunities: 'Re-confirm a named owner for every material-risk control set, then move the focus from defining controls to verifying them.',
notes: '"On paper we are in good shape — every material risk has its controls written down and owned."' },
{ num: 2, name: 'Frontline empowerment', health_pct: 56, avg_5: 3.5, distribution: [1, 2, 5, 7, 3],
statement: '"Frontline workers feel able to stop a job when a critical control is missing."',
summary: 'Stop-work authority exists but is not felt evenly. A meaningful minority — concentrated among contractors and newer crews — do not feel able to call a stop without blame.',
opportunities: 'Brief a single stop-work standard across crews and contractors, and have leaders publicly back the next stop that is called.',
notes: '"Our own crews will call it. With contractors it is patchier — they are not sure it will be backed."' },
{ num: 3, name: 'Field verification', health_pct: 22, avg_5: 2.6, distribution: [3, 6, 5, 3, 1],
statement: '"Critical controls are verified in the field — not just signed off on paper."',
summary: 'Lowest-scoring expectation, and the priority. Verification is documented but not consistently done at the face — isolation, working-at-height and confined-space checks are the weakest.',
opportunities: 'Stand up field-leader verification routines for the unverified critical controls before the next gap assessment. Measure verifications done, not sign-offs collected.',
notes: '"The sign-off is there. Whether someone actually walked the control at the face — that is the bit we cannot prove."' },
{ num: 4, name: 'Learning from incidents', health_pct: 44, avg_5: 3.3, distribution: [1, 3, 6, 6, 2],
statement: '"We learn from incidents and near-misses, and visibly act on them."',
summary: 'Reporting happens, but closing the loop back to crews is inconsistent. Lessons are captured centrally and do not always return to the people who need them.',
opportunities: 'Set a 7-day standard for feeding incident and near-miss learnings back to the originating crew, with a visible action.',
notes: '"We report it. What we do not always see is what changed because of it."' },
{ num: 5, name: 'Visible leadership', health_pct: 67, avg_5: 3.8, distribution: [0, 2, 4, 8, 4],
statement: '"Leaders are visible and consistent on critical-risk discipline."',
summary: 'Solid. Leadership presence is felt, especially on day shift. The opportunity is to sustain that consistency into night shift and across the contractor workforce.',
opportunities: 'Extend the day-shift leadership rhythm into night shift; make critical-risk discipline a standing item in shift handovers.',
notes: '"Day shift you see the leaders out there. Night shift it goes quiet."' },
],
actions: [
{ num: 1, title: 'Stand up field-leader verification routines for the 3 unverified critical controls (isolation, working-at-height, confined space).', element: '3. Field verification', owner: 'Site Safety Lead · St Ives', priority: 'High', status: 'Open' },
{ num: 2, title: 'Formalise stop-work authority across crews and contractors with a single briefed standard.', element: '2. Frontline empowerment', owner: 'Operations Manager', priority: 'High', status: 'In progress' },
{ num: 3, title: 'Close the loop: feed incident & near-miss learnings back to crews within 7 days.', element: '4. Learning from incidents', owner: 'HSE Lead', priority: 'Medium', status: 'Open' },
{ num: 4, title: 'Sustain day-shift leadership visibility into night shift via shift-handover discipline.', element: '5. Visible leadership', owner: 'Shift Superintendents', priority: 'Medium', status: 'Noted' },
{ num: 5, title: 'Re-confirm critical-control ownership for every material risk.', element: '1. Critical controls defined', owner: 'Risk Lead', priority: 'Low', status: 'Closed' },
],
};
function hpColor(v) { return v >= 70 ? '#17b26a' : v >= 60 ? '#66c61c' : v >= 50 ? '#fdb022' : v >= 40 ? '#f79009' : '#f04438'; }
const STATUS_CLS = { 'Open': 'red', 'In progress': 'amber', 'Noted': 'gray', 'Closed': 'green' };
const PRIO_CLS = { 'High': 'red', 'Medium': 'amber', 'Low': 'gray' };
// compact 1..5 response-distribution strip
function DistStrip({ counts }) {
const total = counts.reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0) || 1;
const COL = ['#f04438', '#f79009', '#fdb022', '#66c61c', '#17b26a'];
return (
{counts.map((c, i) => (
{c}{i + 1}
))}
);
}
function ReportView() {
const { go } = useNav();
const d = REPORT.deck, o = REPORT.overall, u = REPORT.understanding;
return (
<>
Overall Operating Model Health is {o.health_pct}% ({o.avg_5.toFixed(1)}/5). Field verification ({REPORT.elements[2].health_pct}%) is the single drag; understanding lifted +{u.after_pct - u.before_pct}pp in the room.}
act="Review the actions register — field-leader verification is the priority before the next gap assessment."/>
{/* ---- cover band (de-branded) ---- */}
Formative Health Assessment · Operating Model Health