The Master notices that several jobs recently treated by officers as 'simple changes' actually involved significant scope changes — new hazards, different personnel, or extended duration — that arguably should have triggered the complex change procedure. What is the underlying risk here, and what should the Master do?

A. This should only be addressed if it is found to have contributed to an actual incident

B. This is acceptable as long as officers use their professional judgment, since no fixed rule can anticipate every situation

C. Officers may be under-classifying changes to avoid the extra time and process of a complex change review, which erodes the safety margin the distinction is meant to preserve; the Master should clarify the criteria for the two categories and reinforce that classification isn't a judgment call to be made under time pressure alone

D. The simple/complex distinction should be removed entirely in favour of treating every change identically

A. Daily, weekly, monthly, and annual risk assessments, based purely on time interval

B. Low, medium, high, and critical risk assessments, based only on severity rating

C. Generic risk assessments (company-level), task-based risk assessments (onboard, specific to the job), toolbox talks (discussing the assessment with those doing the work), and personal/dynamic assessment (an individual's ongoing informal check while working)

D. Deck, engine, catering, and bridge risk assessments, based on department

A. Nothing further — the generic company risk assessment for enclosed space entry already covers this job

B. Only a toolbox talk is needed, since the team already knows the general hazards of enclosed spaces

C. A new generic risk assessment must be drafted and submitted to the company before this job can proceed

D. A task-based risk assessment specific to this entry and these personnel, followed by a toolbox talk walking the team through its findings before work begins