Arc Skills / Technical management and design reviews
Review a risk register for missing or weak risk statements
Use Arc Skills to review an existing risk register for vague statements, duplicated events and controls that do not address the cause. Get original wording beside proposed revisions, plus evidence-backed missing scenarios and owner actions.
Use this skill
Use Arc Skills to review these risk-register statements.
Inputs:
- Original register rows with IDs, owners and controls
- Objectives and current project evidence
- Approved risk definitions and scoring criteria, if available
Preserve each original row. Return its wording defect, a cause → event → consequence proposal, evidence basis, control gap and owner action. Separate issues and action items from future risks; identify duplicates without silently merging them.What you provide and what you get
| What you have | How it is used | What you get |
|---|---|---|
| Existing register rows | Preserve IDs and original wording | A row-by-row review |
| Project objectives and evidence | Check the causal mechanism and omissions | Specific revised or missing scenarios |
| Controls, owners and criteria | Check actionability | Control gaps and ownership decisions |
“The supplier is late” is an issue, not a future event
Illustrative engineering example.
A three-row register mixes a vague future concern, an event that already happened and a requested activity.
R-01: “The sensor might fail.” Owner: electrical.
R-02: “The supplier delivery is late.” Planned date already passed; delivery absent.
R-03: “Do the EMC test.” No causal statement.
Project evidence: shielding unresolved; integration slot reserved; representative harness test not completed.| ID / original wording | Review finding | Proposed statement or classification | Evidence and next action |
|---|---|---|---|
| R-01: The sensor might fail. | No cause, condition or project consequence | With shielding unresolved, coupled noise may exceed sensor error limits and prevent required accuracy during powered operation | Confirm routing and operating conditions; electrical owner addresses the noise mechanism |
| R-02: The supplier delivery is late. | Existing issue; the event has happened | Record delivery delay as an issue. Separate future risk: continued delay may prevent use of the reserved integration slot | Supplier owner confirms recovery dates and slot decision criteria |
| R-03: Do the EMC test. | Action item, not a risk statement | Representative EMC evidence is absent; flight-harness coupling may require rework after integration | Keep the test as a mitigation action tied to the specific event and acceptance limit |
The proposed R-01 and R-03 wording may describe the same physical event. Compare their configuration, consequence and authority before deciding whether to consolidate them; preserve both original IDs in the review.
A review can improve wording without rescoring the entire register. If likelihood and consequence definitions are missing, retain the uncertainty rather than assigning plausible-looking numbers.
Keep each original row beside the proposed correction
- Identify whether a row is a future risk, current issue, action or duplicate.
- Check cause, uncertain event and objective consequence against actual evidence.
- Compare controls and triggers with the causal mechanism and owner authority.
- Propose wording and missing scenarios with locators; leave merging, scoring and acceptance to the governing process.
Questions about this task
Do clearer risk statements automatically reduce risk?
No. They make the decision actionable. Exposure changes when a control is implemented and supported by evidence, or when the underlying situation changes.
Sources and further reading
- NASA Systems Engineering Handbook: technical risk management: Background on risk scenarios, uncertainty, consequences and responses.
References inspected on 3 October 2026. The worked output is an authored example using the stated inputs.