TRY PSYCHPROOF ON ONE REAL ISSUE SITTING ON YOUR DESK.
Not a platform trial. A restructure that is coming, a People at Work report with no next step, or hazards you have identified and cannot get controlled, we take it through identification, consultation, controls and review with you, in one business unit, over six months. You keep the board-ready record whether or not you continue.
Two steps, the same for everyone.
A 20-minute conversation
You tell us which of the three situations below is yours. We tell you honestly whether the pilot fits. No slides, no pitch deck.
What you put in
20 minutes.
We set up the pilot unit together
Business unit, site or team, up to 50 people. Your WHS lead, the unit manager, an HR partner and any HSRs get accounts, up to ten. Nobody else needs a login.
What you put in
One short call, and access to whoever runs the unit.
Three ways a pilot runs.
Pick the one that is yours. All three end in the same place.
Scenario A
A change is coming
A restructure, a new rostering system, an AI tool landing in a team. Something with a date on it.
We run the change through the Change Planner
The engine maps the psychosocial hazards your specific change creates and seeds the controls from the Code of Practice. If the change involves AI or a digital system, it asks the four questions the NSW Digital Work Systems Act and Safe Work Australia's AI guidance require.
The change lead and control owners answer by email
The person accountable for the change confirms the details and signs off through a single-use link. Control owners get one email each to report progress. Nobody outside your WHS lead ever logs in.
You see the gaps before the change lands
The coverage report checks the plan against the Code, your state's regulation, ISO 45003 and the digital work system duties, row by row, each one citing its source. Covered, weak, out of order, or missing, with a fix for each, while there is still time to act.
Scenario B
You have a People at Work report and no next step
You ran the survey. The results are sitting in a PDF. The board is not asking, and you are not sure what the law expects you to do with them.
People at Work closes on 2 October 2026. Extract your reports before then. They import cleanly.
Upload the report
The importer reads your People at Work results and surfaces findings by team and by hazard, prioritised from critical down, each with the suggested actions and toolkits that go with it.
Accept the findings that matter
Every finding is checked against what is already in your register, so nothing gets logged twice. You accept the ones worth acting on, and each becomes a case with a named owner. That is the step the survey never gave you.
Follow through to controls
Each case moves into the same design-controls-and-review cycle as Scenario C. The survey stops being a report you filed and becomes a set of things that got done, on the record.
Scenario C
You know your hazards and need controls that hold up
The hazards are identified, on paper or in someone's head. What is missing is controls that would satisfy an inspector, owners who will act, and any record that it was reviewed.
Design controls from a cited library
Pick from controls tied to each hazard, each citing the Code, ISO 45003 or the WHS Act. The hierarchy of controls is enforced: training or communication alone is not accepted as the only control, because the Code does not accept it either.
Assign owners and get them moving
Every control gets a named person. Owners report progress through a single emailed link, so line managers are accountable without learning a new system.
The 90-day review actually happens
Each owner is asked two questions: was it implemented, and did it work. The answers are recorded, new hazards can be logged, and the outcome is timestamped. This is where most paper plans quietly fall over, and where the pilot proves its value.
Same finish line, whichever door you used.
A board-ready record, either way
Whichever door you came in through, you finish with a timestamped, tamper-evident record of what was identified, what was done, who did it and when, plus an executive summary written for the leadership decision on rollout. You keep it whether or not you continue.
What you put in
Take it to the board.
Need to take this upstairs first? Print the PsychProof overview
We're much cheaper than a consulting firm. Here's why that's not a shortcut.
A consulting firm charges for credibility as much as for the work. We built the credibility into the process itself.
Every recommendation cites its source
No hazard or control is generated from opinion. Each one names the Code of Practice clause, ISO 45003 section or WHS Act provision it comes from, so your WHS lead is confirming a sourced position, not trusting a black box.
A named consultant reviews the material changes
For a restructure, an AI rollout or anything with real exposure, an independent WHS consultant from our network reviews the plan before it's signed off. You get a person you can name in the record, not just software.
Built with credentialed practitioners, not just engineers
The hazard and control library was developed with input from HFESA-credentialed human factors specialists, not written from the Code alone by a product team guessing at what a practitioner would flag.
A live record, not a point-in-time report
A consulting engagement gives you a PDF that describes the day it was written. PsychProof keeps updating and re-timestamping the record as controls are actioned and reviewed, so it's still accurate the day an inspector or a claim shows up.
What we don't build
PsychProof does not replace a workplace investigation, a return-to-work case manager, or a clinician. It does not run culture surveys as its core purpose, and it will not tell you a restructure is a bad idea. What it does is make sure that once a hazard is identified, by any method, it gets a named owner, a documented control and a review date, and that the record of that stands up. If what you need is a full-service consultancy, we'll say so and point you to one in our network.
Designed so "no" is the harder answer.
The fees don't disappear
Every pilot dollar is credited against your first year of Governance if you roll out within the six-month term. If you don't, you've paid for one properly managed issue and a report you keep.
It won't eat your team's time
The WHS lead drives it. Everyone else contributes through a single emailed question or a sign-off link. We designed it so line managers and change leads never have to learn a new system.
Your data stays in Australia
Hosted in Sydney, never offshore. Every record independently timestamped by a third-party notary, so the evidence stands on its own. Full detail on our Trust page.
You're not locked in
Six months, then it's your call. No auto-renewal into a bigger tier, no penalty for stopping. The whole point of a pilot is to make the rollout decision with evidence, not a guess.
The questions we get asked.
We don't have a psychosocial specialist on staff.
That's most organisations, and it's what the engine is for. It seeds the hazards and controls from the Code so your WHS lead confirms rather than invents. For a major piece of work you can also bring in one of the independent WHS consultants in our network, who use the platform with their clients.
We already have HR and incident systems.
Keep them. PsychProof doesn't replace either. It sits alongside and produces the one thing neither is built for: a timestamped record that you assessed and controlled the psychosocial risk, before it became a claim.
What if it finds problems we didn't know about?
Then you found them before an inspector or a claim did, with time to act. A documented gap with a recorded fix is more defensible than a plan that looks clean because nobody checked.
Is this only relevant in NSW because of the digital work system law?
No. The general WHS duty to manage psychosocial risk already covers AI and digital systems in every state. NSW has added its own named duty on top, not yet in force. The pilot addresses both: the national duty for everyone, and the NSW-specific rows if you're there.
Six months feels long.
It's long enough for the work to land and for the 90-day review to actually happen, which is where most plans quietly fall over. A shorter pilot would only show you the planning half.
What does this cost?
Pilot pricing is on the pricing page. As a comparison, the median serious mental-health claim costs $67,400 in compensation alone, more than nine years of the pilot.
Which of the three is yours?
That's the only question we need answered to tell you whether a pilot makes sense. Twenty minutes, no pitch deck.
Book a walkthroughNeed something to forward to your board or CPO? Print the PsychProof overview