Hi Damian

I take the opposite view to you and I'll explain why.

I don't see any practical difference between 'will' and 'must' in this context.  Either way a commitment is being made to do the thing, and that is what matters.

I also think it may be counter-productive to criticise your risk assessors on small points of terminology.  The thing you need from them is to identify the required control measures.  If they feel the risk assessment is being treated as an exercise in English language they are less likely to put in their best efforts in terms of the content of the risk assessment which is what really matters.

Even where someone has used incorrect terminology or spelling, so long as the meaning is clear I usually let it pass and focus on the content as being what is important.

In this particular case of 'will' and 'must' I don't see that either terminology is incorrect at all.  I see this one as just a matter of style and preference.

As Kate says once controls have been identified as being required through a risk assessment they must be applied. Words like “must”, “should”, “will” don’t make any difference.

As has been said before the risk assessment itself does not confer any protection against the risk. It is the controls that do that and the emphasis should be on getting them adopted and maintained not on the nuances of the risk assessment ( which is one reason why I dislike the risk assessment  matrices people use: too much effort spent trying agree  the scores and not enough time getting it to work!)  

Edited by user 10 April 2018 16:29:59(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

But we are not writing laws here, we are writing risk assessments or instructions for operatives.

In case my point wasn't clear, I will express it more explicitly.  When writing laws it is crucial to use the correct legalistic language.  When describing control measures in a risk assessment, it is only important to get the control measures right and to express clearly what they are.  Legalistic language isn't a requirement of risk assessments.

Good point Zyggy, however 'should' was never part of the question or discussion. It clearly gives an impression the instruction is not mandatory, hence I would not use should as for an instruction which mist be carried out. 

I am of the opinion now through some extensively competent advice that it does not matter what wording is used 'as long it is not should' the critical factor here is that written control measures are robust, realistic, persuasive, effective but fundamentally comprehensible so that personnel are clear on how to go about hazardous tasks in a manner that reflects written procedures.

Many thanks for all those who have taken time to read and respond.

Damian 

Edited by user 16 April 2018 16:07:21(UTC)  | Reason: Spelling