Skip to content
VALIFY
The Entire Process

Upload the RAMS. Review the findings.

The whole journey, start to finish — what you do, what runs in the background, what lands on screen and why each step is there. Plus all 15 sections checked on every scan, the cross-document checks in plain English, and three findings taken straight out of a real report.

Time per documentUnder 5 minMost scans; complex documents can take longer.
Sections checked15 of 15Every section, every scan, no exceptions.
Severity levelsFourCritical, Needs Attention, Minor, Done Well.
The decisionYoursValify finds; your team judges.

Open a real sample report

These findings come from an anonymised scaffolding RAMS. Filter by severity, read the reasoning and open the original PDF.

Scaffolding_Erection_RAMS.docxAnonymised sample / 2 Aug 2026
Full PDF

Critical

3 findings / sample document

Section 8 / Control Measures (Hazard Register Row: Cutting Operations)RPE listed in plant section but absent from hazard register and control measures

The plant and equipment section references RPE as a requirement for the cut-off saw operator, and RPE is associated with cutting operations. However, the hazard register contains no hazard entry for inhalation of metal dust or concrete dust arising from tube cutting, and no control measure addresses this exposure pathway. The PPE table also does not list RPE as a required item despite it being referenced in the plant section.

Why it matters

Inhalation of metal swarf and dust from tube cutting is a real exposure risk; without a corresponding hazard entry, likelihood and severity rating, and a control measure following the hierarchy of control, the document provides no assurance that this risk has been adequately assessed or communicated to operatives.

Section 10 / Training and CompetenceNo named supervisor identified for the trainee scaffolder

One operative is identified as a CISRS Trainee requiring supervision, but the document does not name the specific individual responsible for supervising them, does not state the required ratio of trained scaffolders to trainees, and does not describe any restriction on the tasks the trainee may undertake. The method statement makes no reference to supervision arrangements for trainee operatives.

Why it matters

CISRS trainee scaffolders must work under the direct supervision of a qualified scaffolder at all times; without a named supervisor and defined supervision arrangements documented in the RAMS, there is no auditable assurance that the trainee will be adequately supervised during high-risk erection activities.

Section 15 / Sign OffNo independent reviewed-by signature field present

The sign-off section contains fields for Prepared by, Approved by and Received by. There is no separate Reviewed by or Checked by signature field with a date, despite a named checker being identified in the document control section at the top of the document. That review is noted in the revision table but is not formally captured with a dated signature in the sign-off block.

Why it matters

Without a dated checked-by signature in the sign-off section, there is no auditable record that the document was independently reviewed before approval and issue, which undermines the document control process.

Valify supports a competent person. It does not replace their review or judgement.

These are findings from one anonymised sample, not a guarantee of what every scan will identify. Your competent person reviews the original RAMS and decides.

The full journey, step by step

Six stages. Each one lists what you do, what happens out of sight, what you see, and why the step exists.

  1. 01

    Upload

    A PDF or a Word file, dragged into a box. That is the whole setup.

    What you do
    Drag your RAMS into the upload zone, or click to browse. If there is something site-specific you want looked at closely — a revision that changed the scope, a section you already suspect is thin — you can say so in a note. Nothing else is required: no template, no field mapping, no account configuration.
    What happens in the background
    The file is accepted over TLS and stored in the UK. Text and structure are extracted — headings, tables, the hazard register grid — so that later steps are reading sections rather than one undifferentiated wall of text. Scanned or image-only PDFs are the one case that struggles here, which is why we say so on the limitations page rather than in a footnote.
    What you see
    The drop zone is replaced by a confirmation row showing the file was accepted and how many sections were detected. If the section count looks wrong, that is worth knowing before the review runs, not after.
    Why it matters
    Every review tool that asks for a template gets used on the documents that fit the template. RAMS documents in UK construction do not have a common format, so requiring one would mean reviewing only the easy half.
  2. 02

    Analysis

    Relevant sections reviewed, then cross-referenced for potential inconsistencies.

    What you do
    Nothing. Most scans return a structured first-pass report in under five minutes. Complex documents can take longer. You can leave the page and return to your document list.
    What happens in the background
    Two passes. The first reads each section against what a thorough reviewer would expect to find in it — is there a named muster point, does every hazard carry a residual risk score, is the control measure an action or an instruction to be careful. The cross-referencing pass looks for potential inconsistencies between sections, such as a hazard without a matching control or plant missing from the hazard register. It can miss issues or flag incorrectly.
    What you see
    A progress screen with the stage it is on — uploading, extracting, analysing, generating. It is not a spinner pretending to be busy; each stage completes in turn.
    Why it matters
    A structured first pass provides a starting point for each review. It does not establish that all issues have been found or that the RAMS are suitable.
  3. 03

    The report

    Four severity levels, a section reference on every finding, and the reasoning behind each one.

    What you do
    Read the four counts first — Critical, Needs Attention, Minor and Done Well — and you know the shape of the document before you have read a single finding. Then go to Critical.
    What happens in the background
    Findings are sorted by severity, not by the order they were found. Each one is anchored to the section it came from and carries a "why it matters" you can open, so the reasoning is on the page rather than implied by the fact that something was flagged.
    What you see
    The report on screen, downloadable as a PDF, and as an editable Word file on Growth and above. You can also share a read-only link with the principal contractor without giving them an account.
    Why it matters
    A list of problems with no severity ranking makes everything look equally urgent, which in practice means nothing does. A flag with no reasoning attached cannot be disagreed with — and disagreeing with a flag is a legitimate outcome. Valify raises the question; your team makes the call.
  4. 04

    The decision

    Accept the document, or return it for revision — and either way it is on the record.

    What you do
    Once your team has reviewed the findings, record your decision directly in Valify. Accept the document — logging who approved it, when and what the report contained at that moment — or return it for revision. Every decision goes into your audit trail and cannot be edited afterwards.
    What happens in the background
    The decision is written as an insert, never an update: there is no path from the browser that can edit or delete one afterwards. It carries the severity counts as they stood at the moment of the decision, snapshotted rather than joined, so the record reads correctly on its own. It is kept with the document and deleted with it at 90 days, like everything else about an upload — export it before then if you need it on file for longer.
    What you see
    The decision panel under the report, and afterwards a line on the document showing who decided, what they decided and when. The document history page can be filtered by accepted, returned or still pending.
    Why it matters
    When something goes wrong the question is who reviewed this document and what they concluded. A report on its own does not answer that; a report plus a named, timestamped decision does. Accepting in Valify records your decision — it is not a Valify approval, and nothing here moves that line.
  5. 05

    Fixing

    The part only your people can do.

    What you do
    Work through Critical first. Each finding names the section, states what is missing and says what a thorough reviewer would have expected to find there — so the fix is usually a specific edit rather than a rewrite. Findings you disagree with, you close. That is a judgement call, and it is yours.
    What happens in the background
    Nothing. Valify does not edit your document, and it does not sign anything off. It has no view on whether a control measure is adequate for your site; it has a view on whether the document says what it needs to say.
    What you see
    The report stays in your document history, so what was flagged and what you did about it is on the record.
    Why it matters
    A tool that rewrote your RAMS would be producing a document nobody competent had authored, for a purpose where a competent person has to be accountable. The findings are the deliverable. The document stays yours.
  6. 06

    Resubmit

    Run the corrected version through again and compare.

    What you do
    Upload the revised document as a resubmission of the original. It runs the same review.
    What happens in the background
    The new report is produced independently — it is a fresh review, not a diff of your edits — and then linked to the original so the two can be read side by side.
    What you see
    A comparison of the two reviews: what has been resolved, what is still open, and anything the revision introduced. Editing a document to close one finding occasionally opens another, and this is where that shows up.
    Why it matters
    A first report tells you what is wrong. The second tells you whether you fixed it — which is the thing an auditor is actually asking about when they ask what your review process is.

The 15 sections checked on every scan

No section gets skipped because it is usually fine. Here is what Valify looks for in each one.

  1. 01Document Setup

    Project Details

    Site, client and principal contractor named, correct, and the same everywhere they appear in the document.

  2. 02Document Setup

    Scope of Works

    Activities described specifically enough that hazards can be identified against them, rather than in generalities.

  3. 03Document Setup

    Personnel

    Named roles, qualifications and responsibilities for every person on the job — not job titles standing in for people.

  4. 04Document Setup

    Plant & Equipment

    Every item of plant in scope also appearing in the hazard register, with competence and inspection requirements stated.

  5. 05Document Setup

    Materials & COSHH

    A COSHH assessment for every hazardous substance the works actually involve, matching the materials named in scope.

  6. 06Risk and Controls

    Hazard Identification

    A hazard entry for every activity, item of plant and material the scope implies — specific to this site, not a stock list.

  7. 07Risk and Controls

    Risk Assessment

    Likelihood and severity scored consistently, before and after controls, with residual risk stated rather than left blank.

  8. 08Risk and Controls

    Control Measures

    A specific, actionable control for every hazard, following the hierarchy of control before PPE is relied on.

  9. 09Risk and Controls

    PPE Requirements

    PPE matched to the hazards actually identified, positioned as the last line of defence rather than the first.

  10. 10Risk and Controls

    Emergency Procedures

    A muster point, first aider and nearest hospital specific to this site — named, not described.

  11. 11Administration

    Environmental Considerations

    Noise, dust, waste and watercourse risks addressed with mitigations specific to these works and this location.

  12. 12Administration

    Communication & Briefing

    A defined process for briefing the document to every operative before work starts, with sign-off recorded.

  13. 13Administration

    Legislation References

    Current regulations cited, relevant to the activity described — not superseded guidance carried over from an old template.

  14. 14Administration

    Signatures & Sign-Off

    Every required signature present, dated, and dated before the works were scheduled to start.

  15. 15Administration

    Review & Revision History

    A revision history current and specific to this project, with no leftovers from the document it was adapted from.

The cross-document checks, in plain English

Checking each section on its own is the easy half. These are the checks that read one section against another — the ones that are genuinely hard to do by hand on a forty-page document, because they require holding two distant pages in your head at the same time.

  • Does every hazard have a control measure?

    Each entry in the hazard register is matched against the control measures section. A hazard listed in Section 6 with nothing in Section 8 that addresses it is flagged — as is a control measure that addresses a hazard nobody wrote down.

    How it gets missed: The two lists are usually pages apart and often in different formats — a table on one page, prose on another. Checking them against each other means holding fifteen or twenty hazards in your head while reading a different section.

  • Does every item of plant appear in the hazard register?

    Plant and equipment named in the scope or the plant section is looked for in the hazard register. A cut-off saw in the equipment list with no entry for dust, noise or vibration anywhere is the classic version of this gap.

    How it gets missed: Plant is usually added late — a machine gets swapped in the week before the works — and the equipment list is updated while the hazard register, written first, is not.

  • Does the PPE match the hazards, and follow the controls?

    The PPE table is read against the identified hazards two ways: is there PPE listed for each hazard that needs it, and is PPE being used to do a job an engineering control should have done first.

    How it gets missed: A PPE list looks complete on its own. It is only wrong in relation to something else — a hazard it does not cover, or a control measure it is quietly substituting for.

  • Do the hazards match the scope of works?

    Every activity described in the scope and the method statement is checked for a corresponding hazard entry. If the sequence describes a Day 2 extension and the hazard register only covers initial erection, that is flagged.

    How it gets missed: Scope changes during drafting. The method statement gets the new activity, the hazard register keeps the old shape, and both sections read correctly on their own.

  • Do the materials match the COSHH assessments?

    Substances named anywhere in the document are checked against the COSHH assessments, in both directions — a material with no assessment, and an assessment for something the works no longer involve.

    How it gets missed: COSHH assessments are frequently attached as a pack from a previous job. Reading them confirms they exist; it does not confirm they are for these materials.

  • Is the document internally consistent about the basics?

    Site address, client, principal contractor, dates and project reference are compared everywhere they appear. So are the revision history and the sign-off dates — a document approved after the works were scheduled to start is a finding.

    How it gets missed: These are the details a reviewer reads past on the first page and never returns to, which is exactly why a stale muster point or a previous client’s name survives three revisions.

Three findings from a real report

Not illustrations. These are the first Critical finding, the first Needs Attention finding and the first Done Well section from the sample report you can download below — quoted in full, exactly as they appear in the file.

CriticalSection 8 — Control Measures (Hazard Register Row: Cutting Operations)

RPE listed in plant section but absent from hazard register and control measures

The plant and equipment section references RPE as a requirement for the cut-off saw operator, and RPE is associated with cutting operations. However, the hazard register contains no hazard entry for inhalation of metal dust or concrete dust arising from tube cutting, and no control measure addresses this exposure pathway. The PPE table also does not list RPE as a required item despite it being referenced in the plant section.

Why it matters: Inhalation of metal swarf and dust from tube cutting is a real exposure risk; without a corresponding hazard entry, likelihood and severity rating, and a control measure following the hierarchy of control, the document provides no assurance that this risk has been adequately assessed or communicated to operatives.

Critical means the document is not suitable for site until this is resolved.

Needs AttentionSection 1 — Document Control / Revision History

Revision 3 description does not match the stated trigger for re-issue

The user notes confirm that Revision 3 was triggered by the client structural engineer confirming tie points on 10/07/2026, which resulted in an update to the scope including the tie pattern verified against structural drawing RD-STRUCT-119 in Appendix F. However, the Revision 3 description in the document control table states only 'Updated for revised site access route following client instruction'. The access route change and the structural tie confirmation appear to be two separate changes, but only one is described in the revision record.

Recommended improvement: Update the Revision 3 description in the document control table to accurately capture all changes made in this revision, including the incorporation of the structural engineer's tie point confirmation dated 10/07/2026 and reference to Appendix F, so that the revision history gives a complete and accurate account of all changes made.

Needs Attention is a weak point, not a guaranteed failure — it should be improved before the document is used.

Done WellSection 3 — Scope of Works

Meets expectations

The scope is specific, detailed and clearly describes the exact activities to be undertaken including the number of lifts, board configuration, tie specification, staircase access tower, Day 2 extension, and reference to the TG20:21 compliance sheet. It is directly traceable to a specific structure on a named site and avoids generic language entirely.

Sections that meet the standard in full are reported too, so your team can see the review covered the whole document — not only the parts with problems.

View Full Sample ReportPDF · 10 pages, 24 findings · no sign-up needed

Try it on a document you already trust.

Three free scans, no card and no sales call. Upload a RAMS you have already reviewed and signed off — that is the one that tells you whether this is worth having.

Start with 3 free scans

Where to next

Three worked examplesWhat a subcontractor pack, a signed-off document and a Monday backlog each look like.What we will not catchThe honest list of what a document review cannot tell you.Where your documents goProcessing providers, 90-day retention from upload and no model training.
Try 3 free scansNo card required