Critical Controls vs “Important Controls”: How to Draw the Line (and Prove It)

Not every good control is a critical control. Here’s a practical way to separate “must-work” barriers from “nice-to-have” controls—and how to prove effectiveness with clear standards and verification evidence.

Why this matters (and why teams get stuck)

Most organisations don’t struggle because they lack controls. They struggle because they have too many—and they treat them all the same.

That creates three problems:

• Noise: Teams drown in checklists and don’t know what really prevents a serious event.

• False confidence: “We did the forms” becomes a proxy for real risk reduction.

• Weak evidence: When auditors, executives, or regulators ask “Show me this control works,” the organisation can show activity—but not effectiveness.

The goal is simple: identify the controls that must work to prevent or mitigate high-consequence events, then run a verification rhythm that generates defensible evidence.

‍

Definitions that remove the ambiguity

Critical controls

Controls that are essential to prevent a high-consequence event (or reduce its consequences) and must be reliably effective. If they fail, the outcome can be catastrophic or life-altering.

If this control fails, could someone die or could we suffer a major incident? If yes → you’re probably looking at a critical control candidate.

Important controls

Controls that are beneficial, often required, and absolutely worth doing—but their failure alone is unlikely to cause a catastrophic outcome, or they mainly improve consistency, compliance, and general risk reduction.

Important controls often support critical controls (training, supervision, housekeeping), but they’re not the barrier that stops the major event by itself.

A practical way to draw the line: the “Critical Control Test”

Use this set of criteria to classify a control as critical vs important. You don’t need a complex scoring model to start—just consistent, documented reasoning.

1) Link to a high-consequence scenario

A critical control must clearly connect to a top event (from your risk register, MAE register, or Bowtie).

Ask: “Which catastrophic event does this control prevent or mitigate?”

If you can’t name it, it’s probably not critical.

2) Barrier strength (does it actually stop the event?)

Critical controls are genuine barriers—not just reminders.

• Stronger barrier examples: engineered isolation, interlocks, structural certification, design standards, competency verification, critical inspections/tests, permit-to-work conditions.

• Weaker barrier examples (often important): posters, toolbox talks, general awareness campaigns, broad “safety leadership” actions without a clear barrier mechanism.

3) Specific and measurable performance standard

If you can’t define what ‘good’ looks like, you can’t prove it works.

A critical control should have a performance standard that answers:

• What must be in place?

• Who owns it?

• When/how often is it required?

• How well must it perform? (tolerances, thresholds, acceptance criteria)

• What evidence proves it?

If the standard reads like a slogan (“ensure equipment is safe”), it’s not ready to be critical.

4) Verifiable in operation (not just “we believe it happens”)

Critical controls must be verifiable through objective evidence.

Good verification is:

• observable (photos, readings, test results, sign-offs by authorised roles)

• repeatable (consistent method)

• time-bound (dated evidence)

• attributable (who did it)

If the only evidence is “people say they do it,” it’s an important control—or it needs redesign.

5) Single-point-of-failure logic

If that control fails, do you still have other independent barriers?

• If no, it’s probably critical.

• If yes, it might still be critical, but you should define it as part of a critical control set and verify it accordingly.

6) Realistic ownership and governance

A control can’t be “critical” if nobody truly owns it, maintains it, and has authority to stop work when it fails.

Critical controls require:

• named accountable owner

• escalation path

• response time expectations

• change control when conditions shift (site, equipment, process)

Critical controls are the barriers that directly prevent or mitigate catastrophic events, which is why they need clear performance standards and must be verifiable with strong, objective evidence. When a critical control fails, it should trigger escalation and often immediate action, potentially including stop-work, and it should be checked on a disciplined cadence that matches the risk (for example, shift-based, weekly, or monthly).

Important controls, by contrast, improve overall safety and compliance and provide meaningful support, but they’re not usually the last line of defence preventing a catastrophic outcome. Evidence for important controls may be broader or more qualitative, and if they fail, the response is typically improvement actions rather than escalation or stop-work, with oversight managed through normal assurance activities and continuous improvement cycles.

Examples: What’s “critical” vs “important” in real life

Example 1: Working at heights

Top event: fall from height

Likely critical controls

• Certified anchor points and fall arrest system inspections to a defined standard

• Edge protection installed to engineered requirements

• Permit-to-work that confirms the critical conditions are met before exposure

Likely important controls

• General “working at heights” toolbox talks

• Signage reminding workers to clip on

• Generic supervision checklists (unless tied to a specific critical verification)

How you prove it

• inspection records, certification evidence, defect closure, photos of installed systems, permit sign-off by authorised roles, sampling outcomes

Example 2: Mobile plant interactions (construction/mining)

Top event: struck-by / run-over

Likely critical controls

• Physical separation (barriers, exclusion zones, engineered routes)

• Proximity detection / collision avoidance systems where required

• Traffic management plan with defined, enforced design (routes, speed limits, segregation)

Likely important controls

• Hi-vis compliance checks

• General site induction content (unless competency is verified for high-risk tasks)

• Safety moments

How you prove it

• route maps + inspections, maintenance/test logs for detection systems, enforcement evidence (spot checks), non-conformance tracking, corrective actions closed

Turning Bowties into a control program that runs itself

A Bowtie is the bridge between theory and execution:

• Threats → Preventative critical controls

• Consequences → Mitigative critical controls

• Degradation factors → what makes the control fail

• Verification → how you detect drift early

This is where many programs mature: they stop listing “controls,” and start managing control effectiveness.

A practical 7-step method to implement this in your organisation

1. Choose your top events
   Start with a short list (e.g., 10–20 major risk scenarios).

2. Map controls to those events (Bowtie or equivalent)
   You need visibility of preventative and mitigative barriers.

3. Apply the Critical Control Test
   Classify controls and document the rationale.

4. Write performance standards for each critical control
   Make them measurable and auditable.

5. Create a verification plan
   Define: method, frequency, sampling, evidence required, roles, escalation.

6. Run a governance rhythm
   Weekly operational checks + monthly reviews + quarterly deep-dive trends.

7. Close the loop
   Tie incidents, near misses, audits, and changes back to the Bowtie and update controls accordingly.

Common pitfalls are usually easy to spot once you know what to look for. The first is treating everything as critical—if a site has 50+ “critical” controls, focus gets diluted and nothing truly stands out, so it’s better to prioritise the barriers that genuinely prevent or mitigate catastrophic outcomes. Another common issue is listing controls without clear performance standards; if you can’t define what “pass/fail” looks like, you can’t verify whether the control is actually working. Closely related is verification that becomes paperwork-only, where activity is recorded but evidence isn’t objective, traceable, or meaningful in practice. Organisations also weaken their CCM program when there’s no escalation path for failures—a critical control failure should trigger a defined response, sometimes including stop-work until the barrier is restored. Finally, controls can lose their purpose when they drift away from the risk scenarios they’re meant to manage, so keeping each control tied back to the specific high-consequence event it prevents or mitigates is essential.

‍

How myosh supports Critical Control Management (CCM) and Bowties

Once you’ve defined what’s critical, the real challenge is execution and proof. A CCM approach typically needs:

• a single place to define critical controls and performance standards

• configurable verification workflows (checks, inspections, tests)

• evidence capture (photos, records, documents)

• action tracking with due dates and escalation

• dashboards that show control health (overdue verifications, defects, trends)

• traceability for audits (who did what, when, and what evidence was collected)

This is the operating system of critical controls: not just defining them, but proving they’re working—consistently.