Sign in Start free

Synthetic sample — not a real customer report

See what a Sentryline gap report looks like.

This sample is built from a synthetic safety policy. It shows the type of findings, severity labels, document evidence, recommended fixes, and action plan Sentryline produces from uploaded documents.

Run a Free Document Gap Preview View pricing

Storyboard preview · Video coming soon

Watch how Sentryline works

Video coming soon. For now, this storyboard shows the flow: upload documents, review likely gaps, see severity, and get an action plan.

Run a Free Document Gap Preview View pricing

Gather: synthetic document uploaded

Analyze: likely gaps identified

Prioritize: severity, recommendations, and action plan

Document reviewed

Acme_Safety_Policy_v3.docx

Safety policy (synthetic sample — not a real customer document)

Findings

5 findings

2 high · 2 medium · 1 low

Source verification

For review — not source-verified

Findings are based on the uploaded document and internal reference material only.

Findings

Hazard communication program references outdated SDS standard

High severity

Document evidence: Section 4.2 of the uploaded policy references "MSDS sheets" and a 1994 revision date. Modern Hazard Communication language uses "Safety Data Sheets (SDS)" under the GHS-aligned format.
Why it matters: Inspectors and auditors look for current Hazard Communication language. Outdated terminology can signal that the program has not been refreshed in years and may trigger deeper review.
Recommended fix: Update Section 4.2 to use "Safety Data Sheet (SDS)" terminology and align format references to the current Hazard Communication Standard. Have a qualified safety professional confirm the final wording.

regulation_ref: for_review_not_source_verified

PPE policy missing documented hazard assessment

High severity

Document evidence: Section 6 lists required PPE by job role but does not reference a written hazard assessment or who certified it.
Why it matters: A documented, signed hazard assessment is commonly expected to support PPE selection. Missing the underlying assessment is a frequent finding during onsite reviews.
Recommended fix: Add a reference to the written hazard assessment, the date it was completed, and the name/role of the person who certified it. Attach the assessment as an appendix or linked document.

regulation_ref: for_review_not_source_verified

Emergency action plan does not specify alarm and accountability procedures

Medium severity

Document evidence: Section 8 describes evacuation routes but does not describe how the alarm is communicated or how employees are accounted for after evacuation.
Why it matters: Emergency action plans are commonly expected to describe alarm methods and a procedure to account for all employees after evacuation.
Recommended fix: Add a subsection covering the alarm method, who initiates it, the muster point, and the accountability roll-call procedure.

regulation_ref: for_review_not_source_verified

Training records section does not specify retention period

Medium severity

Document evidence: Section 11 mentions that training is documented but does not state how long records are retained or who maintains them.
Why it matters: Reviewers frequently ask for training records during inspections and audits. Unclear retention can lead to records being purged or being unavailable when requested.
Recommended fix: Specify a retention period (for example, length of employment plus a defined number of years) and identify the role responsible for maintaining the records.

regulation_ref: for_review_not_source_verified

Inconsistent revision dates across sections

Low severity

Document evidence: The cover page shows a 2024 revision, but Sections 4 and 7 still show 2019 revision footers.
Why it matters: Inconsistent revision dates suggest partial updates and make it harder to prove the document is current.
Recommended fix: Reconcile revision footers across all sections after each update. Consider a single revision history table at the front of the document.

regulation_ref: for_review_not_source_verified

Findings are AI-assisted and should be reviewed by a qualified professional. Source-verified checks are marked separately. Do not treat unverified references as official legal conclusions.

Recommended action plan

Priority	Item
Now	Refresh hazard communication language and PPE hazard assessment references.
30 days	Add alarm + accountability procedures to the emergency action plan.
60 days	Define training-record retention and assign an owner.
Housekeeping	Reconcile revision footers and add a revision history table.

Export to PDF

Real reports are exportable as a clean PDF — leadership-ready, audit-prep-ready, and team-ready. (Export disabled in this demo.)

Ready to run a free preview on your own document?

Upload one compliance document and Sentryline returns a limited gap preview with the same structure you just saw above.

Run a Free Document Gap Preview View pricing

Sentryline reports are informational decision-support — not a certification, legal opinion, or guarantee of compliance. Have qualified safety, compliance, legal, or industry professionals review final decisions.