Does adopting a Safety-II mindset mean a DP team should stop investigating incidents and root causes in the traditional Safety-I way?

A. Yes — Safety-II guidance states that incident investigation should be discontinued entirely

B. Safety-II only applies to onshore management, never to vessel-level practice

C. Safety-I and Safety-II cannot coexist within the same safety management system

D. No — Safety-II is complementary, not a replacement; incident investigation and root-cause elimination remain essential, but they are supplemented by actively studying everyday successful adaptation, giving a fuller picture of safety than either approach alone

A. Safety-I and Safety-II are simply two names for the same incident investigation method

B. Safety-II only applies to engineering systems, never to human performance

C. Safety-I is the newer model that has fully replaced Safety-II in modern DP guidance

D. Safety-I focuses on identifying and eliminating causes of things going wrong, defining safety as the absence of incidents; Safety-II focuses on understanding how things usually go right despite variability, defining safety as the presence of the capacity to adapt and succeed under varying conditions

A. The distinction is only relevant to shore management, not to the DPO on watch

B. They are identical by definition — procedures always exactly describe what crews actually do

C. "Work-as-done" refers only to maintenance tasks, not watchkeeping

D. "Work-as-imagined" is what procedures, checklists, and management assume happens; "work-as-done" is what actually happens on watch, including the informal adaptations crew make to handle real conditions — gaps between the two are where unrecognised risk and unrecognised good practice both hide