Squidlord,
As regards POSMS / 00-56, you are correct, the words were just easier to find from 00-56 because it is bit more concise (IMHO), without the need to trawl through all the SMPs. For the linkage between the 2, I think that POSMS sums it up best itself:
2.4 POSMS Alignment
2.4.1 The POSMS is intended to be consistent with the terminology and approach of
Def Stan 00-56 Issue 4.
but 00-56 is not a one-sided document:
Safety Management Requirements for Defence Systems
Part 1 : Requirements
a. This Part of the Defence Standard provides requirements for the management of
safety. It can be applied to any MOD project and can be applied in any phase of a project’s
life. This Standard shall be used by Defence Contractors as required by contract. The
effective application of this Standard requires close cooperation between all parties, as the
responsibility for the achievement of safety is shared.
.
.
f. This Standard has been devised solely for the use of the Ministry of Defence (MOD)
and its contractors in the execution of contracts for the MOD.
Now, one can also get in arguments over applicable contractual standards etc, but I think the key issue is not what version of POSMS / 00-56 do we take the words from, but what principles do we follow? As is often the case it should be "common sense, written down"
sw
edit - ps, I don't take classification of the hazard log as an excuse not to address something. There are ways and means, even if it means that the content of one hazard entry is segregated.