OPS.18:4.4 - Carry out containment or recovery and preserve continuing service

Select an action within the available authority: continue with observation, segregate affected output, pause a risky change, adjust admission, restore a known workable configuration, rework a lot or request the needed professional decision. State the affected scope and any service that must continue.

Obtain the capability, access and protected human conditions required for the action. Use OPS.12/.13 if recovery competes with existing service or relies on extra cover. An urgent label can identify priority; the actual assignment and authority determine who may act.

Where containment restores service before the cause is known, state what remains unresolved. Enter the following inquiry when prevention still needs an explanation. Extending a correction to new operating conditions requires support for its protective effect there; a stronger causal claim needs evidence for that claim. Reuse sufficient existing results, and apply a qualified correction directly when they settle the action.

1. Reconstruct the incident. Recover the failed result and requirement, affected occurrences and configurations, sequence, effects and containment already performed. Obtain the relevant participants’ knowledge and permitted records. Distinguish observations from inferred links and identify missing facts that could matter to prevention.
2. Develop the material explanations. Follow contributing conditions beyond the immediate symptom, allowing several interacting conditions or rival accounts. Use B.5.2 when plausible explanations still need to be developed. For a disputed link, identify the existing observation, established mechanism or attainable test that could support or challenge it. C.28 helps qualify the causal conclusion; domain knowledge and evidence must supply the links in this incident.
3. Choose supported prevention. Compare retaining adequate protection, a narrow configuration or access correction, a change to the reusable way of working and a larger redesign where these are credible alternatives. Assess future exposure and avoidable consequences together with the full effort, delay, displaced service and other burden of each change. C.11 governs the choice; use C.11.CRC when the contribution of a finite change to the present arrangement needs that comparison. Zero loss in a near miss does not remove the exposed future consequence.
4. Assign and verify the chosen change. Name who will deliver it, the required result and its completion conditions. A recurring operating Method change belongs to OPS.16; choosing among ways to retain in an operating repertoire belongs to OPS.17. A local configuration, access or maintenance correction can finish as that correction. Verify completion separately from the restart conditions and later recurrence observations in :4.5.

Require sufficient support for the proposed protection under the relevant explanations that remain plausible. If they all support the same available correction, choosing a final causal account is unnecessary for that prevention decision. Retain the unresolved explanation wherever it limits a claim or later use. Obtain another observation when it can change the prevention, its permissibility or burden, or what the evidence warrants saying. If the worth or feasibility of that inquiry is itself unsettled, use C.11.DUA. Applicable protection and evidence requirements continue to govern the action.