Nuclear · Safety & Assurance Case
Keep the safety argument connected to plant, people and process.
Build an explicit argument. Connect the controls and original evidence. Record the people, limitations and decisions behind each reviewed issue.
Available for controlled evaluation. Specialist acceptance and hosting suitability must be established before operational use.
A traceable argument
Context → claims → evidence → independent review
Documentation training only. No real nuclear plant parameters, safety limits or permissioning decisions are represented.
Original sector framework · human decisionsONR principles guide regulatory judgement and are not sufficient design or operating standards. This edition requires specialist validation and an approved information-handling environment before operational use.
Built around your review questions
Nuclear context, made explicit.
Lifecycle, facility boundaries and permissioning context
Identify the lifecycle stage, facility boundaries, applicable licence conditions and required permissioning route with competent specialist input.
Safety functions and defence in depth
Record the identified safety functions, supporting systems, dependencies and limits of the argument. Do not infer independence from separate names.
Deterministic and probabilistic analysis references
Reference controlled analyses, assumptions, limitations and their applicability. Sentinel does not calculate reactor safety or validate those analyses.
Operating rules and limits references
Identify controlled operating rules, limits, conditions and responsible owners. No operating values are generated by this product.
Ageing, examination and surveillance evidence
Reference ageing management, inspection, examination and surveillance evidence and unresolved findings.
Independent review, periodic review and permissioning
Record independent review, periodic review, open matters and the separate regulator or dutyholder decisions required.
Fictional demonstration · no live records changed
Northbank Research – non-operational training case
A fictional non-operational facility documentation exercise reviews an ageing-management evidence gap. No reactor design, source inventory, security arrangement or operating instruction is supplied.
The documented safety argument is justified for the stated lifecycle and scope
Link applicable evidence and document why it substantiates or challenges this claim.
Safety functions and dependencies are explicitly substantiated
Link applicable evidence and document why it substantiates or challenges this claim.
Analysis assumptions remain applicable to the assessed configuration
Link applicable evidence and document why it substantiates or challenges this claim.
Operating limits are traceable to controlled approved sources
Link applicable evidence and document why it substantiates or challenges this claim.
Ageing and surveillance evidence remains current
Link applicable evidence and document why it substantiates or challenges this claim.
Independent review and required permissioning decisions are recorded separately
Link applicable evidence and document why it substantiates or challenges this claim.
Explore the review scenarios
1. Establish the working baseline
Define boundaries, assign a case owner and record the relevant requirements and their current editions. The example begins in Draft; no claim is automatically supported.
2. A gap challenges the argument
An ageing-management evidence reference is overdue for review. Evidence applicability requires reassessment Record the challenge against the relevant claim. Retain the source evidence and determine who must review it.
3. A supporting record changes
Update a linked assessment or shared control, then refresh the case. The dependency version mismatch prompts review. A subsequent draft may acknowledge the new version; a previously issued snapshot remains unchanged.
4. Review and controlled issue
Resolve completeness gaps, substantiate claims and submit to the assigned reviewer. Every contributor to that revision is excluded from approving it. Separate regulatory, clinical or operational decisions remain outside this workflow.
Create an editable copy with “Create fictional Nuclear draft” in the client workspace. Training prompts must be replaced with actual reviewed content before any real case is issued.
Connected to the Sentinel Suite
Use the work you already do.
Learn and challenge
Incident, Investigate and Investigate Pro provide findings that can challenge assumptions. Reference the applicable finding and assessment revision.
Control and verify
Use Bowtie and Assure records, register shared barriers and retain performance evidence. A changed barrier prompts reassessment of dependent cases.
Manage continuing assurance
Change, Compliance and Audit support controlled review. Authorised copies of Observe and Competence evidence can be attached; their original permissions remain separate.
Know what the edition does.
Is this certification or regulatory approval?
No. It manages arguments, evidence, version history and accountable review. It does not decide whether the technical argument is sufficient or whether operations may proceed.
What can I retain and export?
Original PDFs, Word documents, Apple Pages files and supported images can be uploaded to a case. Export Google Docs to Word or PDF first. Download original files separately, export JSON and generate printable case reports.
What information is suitable for this launch?
Use fictional or appropriately authorised evaluation information. This deployment has not been assessed for classified defence material, nuclear-sensitive information, patient-identifiable clinical records or sensitive cyber secrets. Sector labels do not establish hosting accreditation.
Can the edition be allocated separately?
Yes. An administrator allocates each edition to a company. An active company annual licence and manager role are required to write. Existing authorised managers retain read/export access after expiry.
Does the desktop include this edition?
No. These new case editions are cloud add-ons. Desktop case synchronisation and sector-specific desktop validation are separate work.
ONR – Safety Assessment Principles · Reference checked 23 October 2026. Determine applicable current requirements for each real project.