Why verification matters more than ever

Are you relying on Artificial Intelligence (AI) for your crew’s safety?

AI is increasingly used to access technical information quickly. For many general topics, this improves efficiency. In safety-critical maritime operations, however, easy access to answers introduces a different challenge: maintaining clear boundaries between information and verified guidance.

Unverified information has always existed in maritime operations. Informal advice, outdated manuals, and undocumented practices are not new. What AI changes is speed and scale, making such information easier to access and easier to trust.

Decisions related to gas detection, calibration, enclosed-space routines, and safety equipment are not merely abstract technical questions. They are operational decisions that require verification, documentation, and configuration control.

Automated answer systems are not designed to meet these requirements and should not be relied upon as a source for safety-critical decisions.

Information, verification, and traceability

Safety-critical maritime operations have always depended on a clear distinction between informal information and verified guidance. Not all information available to crew or shore staff is suitable as a decision basis.

Automated systems generate responses based on patterns in existing data. They do not verify whether an answer is suitable for a specific vessel, installation, or regulatory context. There is no confirmation of equipment configuration, approval status, or lifecycle support behind the response.

In maritime safety management, this distinction is fundamental. Inspectors and auditors do not evaluate how information was obtained. They assess whether approved procedures, documented routines, and verified inputs support decisions. 

An answer that appears reasonable cannot replace guidance that is traceable and auditable.

Configuration-specific decisions and operational risk

Gas detection and calibration illustrate this clearly. The correct calibration gas depends on the detector model, sensor type, measurement range, and certification basis. A response that is technically correct in general terms can still be incorrect for a specific installation.

The same applies to enclosed space routines. Procedures depend on the equipment carried on board, the gases measured, and the assumptions documented in the vessel’s risk assessments. Generic information cannot account for partial upgrades, equipment replacements, or changes in lifecycle status.

When unverified sources are repeatedly and easily accessed, informal decision-making can gradually replace established routines. This normalization weakens procedural discipline and increases the risk of inconsistencies between equipment, procedures, and documentation.

Verification remains a safety requirement

Maritime operations continue to adopt digital tools and automation. These developments improve access to information and operational efficiency. They do not change the fundamental requirements for safety governance.

Regardless of whether information comes from experience, manuals, online sources, or automated systems, decisions related to gas detection, calibration, and enclosed-space routines must be based on verified inputs, approved procedures, and documented responsibilities.

When technology evolves, the need for clear boundaries, traceability, and configuration control becomes more critical, not less.

Suppliers, operators, and regulators share an interest in ensuring that technological development strengthens existing safety controls rather than bypassing them.