What “hazard closed” actually requires

Every hazard log reaches a point where the pressure is to turn entries green. The programme is late, the stage gate is looming, and an open hazard feels like an obstacle. So hazards get “closed” — and the distinction that matters gets lost.

“Closed” should mean closed by evidence. Not closed by assertion.

Closed by assertion

A hazard is closed by assertion when the entry says the risk has been controlled, but the control cannot be pointed to. There is no test result, no design document, no operating procedure — just a statement that it is handled, often written under deadline. It looks the same in the log. It is not the same in reality.

Closed by evidence

A hazard is closed by evidence when the mitigation exists, is documented, is traceable to the requirement it satisfies, and has been accepted by someone with the authority and the independence to accept it. The evidence can be produced on demand. The residual risk position is explicit, and it has an owner. That is the only kind of closure that stands up when an assessment body or a national authority asks the obvious question: show me.

Why it matters

A hazard log full of assertions is worse than an honest one full of open items, because it hides the work still to do. The open items at least tell you the truth about where the programme stands. When closure is real, the log becomes a management tool: it tells you what is genuinely done, what is load-bearing for authorisation, and what still needs evidence before anyone can sign. When closure is asserted, the log tells you nothing — and the gap surfaces at the worst possible moment.

The test is simple, and worth applying to every green line in the log: if the authority asked to see the evidence tomorrow, could you produce it? If not, the hazard is not closed. It is deferred.