Controls are not the problem.
Proof is.
When OSHA cites a lockout program, it is rarely because the locks were missing. It is because nobody could show that the procedure was inspected, that the person who applied the lock was trained to, or that the lock removed at 15:40 was removed by the person who put it on. The controls existed. The record did not. This page shows what the record looks like when it does.
Download the samples
Generated by Setyr from a synthetic site with fictional employees, exactly as a customer would generate them. Nothing here is a mock-up.
Every procedure in scope for periodic inspection — current, due, and never reviewed — with who inspected it, when, the outcome, and any inspector-independence override with its stated reason.
What to look for: Three of seven procedures have never been inspected. One was inspected by the only authorized employee on site, and the report says so rather than hiding the exception in a footnote. The compliant rows are the evidence; the outstanding rows are the findings.
Every employee holding a training role, against every qualification that role requires — current, expiring, expired, revoked, and never trained.
What to look for: It starts from the role assignment, not from the training records. That is why an employee who holds the authorized-employee role but has never been trained appears as NEVER — a report built on records alone would show a clean sheet for exactly that person, because there is no record to expire.
Every lock applied and removed in a period, in field time, with the lock holder, the point or group box, and who performed the action.
What to look for: One row is a removal in absence — a lock removed by someone other than the person who applied it. It is never folded in with ordinary removals, it is counted separately at the top, and the "performed by" column names the person who did it. That is the (e)(3) exception, and the log makes it impossible to miss.
Four properties every one of these reports has
It reports the whole population
A list of failures is not an attestation. An inspector asking for your periodic inspections wants every procedure and its status, because the compliant rows are the evidence and the outstanding rows are the exceptions. A report that only listed problems would understate its own denominator.
It declares its coverage — before any numbers
Each report states how many sites it covers, and names any site it could not read. A report that quietly totalled four of five sites would be asserting a completeness it does not have — and a director looking at "zero overdue" would have no reason to ask whether one site failed to report.
It separates "nothing found" from "nothing measured"
A site with periodic review switched off has no inspection cadence at all — a more serious finding than a site where everything is current, and one that a naive count would render as zero. The report says which it is. So does the training matrix when no one holds a training role.
It is a record, not a signature
None of these documents has a signature block. They are records of what the system holds, not attestations anyone has signed — and a document with somewhere to sign invites being treated as one. Each closes by returning the (c)(4), (c)(6) and (c)(7) duties to the employer, where the regulation puts them.
These reports are records of data held in Setyr for the sites and period shown in each document. They are not independent audits or certifications, and downloading them does not make a program compliant. Compliance with 29 CFR 1910.147 is a property of an employer's program, not of a document — the reports exist so that the program's actual state can be shown.
Run these on your own sites
Every report above is one click in the customer portal, across every site you run, and can be scheduled to arrive on a cadence.