How FreeHS content is produced
FreeHS ships with content — draft risk assessments, legal register entries, plain-English summaries of legislation. If you are going to build your safety management system on top of it, you deserve to know where that content comes from, what it is and isn't, and who checks it. This page is the honest answer.
What ships in the box
Each sector pack carries the draft risk assessments and the plain-English legal register scope a business in that sector would be expected to hold — the assessments a joiner, a caterer or a care provider would recognise as theirs, and the legislation that actually applies to them. This content is written against UK legislation and HSE guidance as current at the time of authoring. Legislation moves; when it does, the content has to move with it — which is exactly why the review arrangements described below matter.
The machine-drafted rule
Anything the platform generates for you is a draft. It arrives flagged as machine-drafted, and it stays a draft until a competent human has reviewed it, adapted it to the actual workplace, and signed it. This is a rule of the platform (spec §4.10), not a preference — there is no setting that turns it off.
The division of labour is deliberate: FreeHS does the typing; the practitioner does the thinking. A generated assessment saves you an hour of transcription, but it has never seen your site, your people or your kit. Signing is what turns typing into a record — and only a competent person, applying judgement to a real workplace, can do that.
Plain-English summaries are aids, not advice
Every legal register entry pairs a citation with a plain-English summary of what the duty means in practice. Those summaries exist to help you understand the law, not to substitute for it — they are aids to understanding, not legal advice. If a summary and the legislation ever appear to disagree, the citation, not our summary, is authoritative. For anything with legal consequences, read the source or take competent advice.
Where we are
Honestly: today, this content is written and maintained by the platform team. The goal — and the spec's requirement — is named, competent editorial reviewers for statutory content, and a visible review date on every entry so you can see at a glance how fresh it is. That is not yet in place. When it is, this page will name the reviewers and their competence, plainly. Until it does, treat the absence as the honest state of affairs, and lean harder on your own competent review.
Found an error?
If something in our content is wrong — an out-of-date citation, a misleading summary, a control measure that doesn't reflect current guidance — tell us through the Worker voice page in your workspace. A public reporting address will be published here once our sending domain is live. Errors in statutory content are corrected as a priority — wrong law is worse than no law, and we treat it that way.