B1 · Module 06 · Class 23 — The Risk Register
Narrative Scene
Seven Days
Seven days. That is what they had.
Santiago divided the risk register into four sections: regulatory, operational, financial, and reputational. Marco took regulatory and operational. Santiago took financial and reputational. Patricia Lam had sent a template — eight minimum entries, each with a root cause analysis and a named mitigation owner.
On Thursday evening Marco knocked on the door. "I have five entries. They are accurate, but they read like a list."
Santiago looked at the screen. Marco was right. The entries were flat — all the same weight, all the same tone. Nothing was clearly more serious than anything else. A risk register was not a list. It was an argument: here is what could go wrong, here is how likely it is, here is what we have done about it, here is why you should trust our judgement.
"The language is the problem," Santiago said. "You are describing what happened. A risk register analyses what should have happened, what could still happen, and what must be done. Modal perfects. Obligation language. Let me show you."
Risk Register Language Patterns
A professional risk register uses three language registers simultaneously: formal impersonal tone, precise modal language, and obligation structures. This section maps each field of a risk register to the grammar patterns that belong there.
Risk Description Field — Nominalized, Impersonal, Passive
The description field names the risk without assigning blame. Use nouns, passives, and impersonal structures.
Weak (personal / verbal) | Strong (nominalized / impersonal) | Pattern used |
Vantage might enforce Clause 7.3. | Potential enforcement of Clause 7.3 by the client party. | Nominalization + passive agent |
The Senate committee could delay approval. | Risk of regulatory delay attributable to Senate committee schedule. | Nominalization + attributive phrase |
We might not deliver the register on time. | Failure to submit the risk register within the Clause 9.1 deadline. | Nominalization + infinitive phrase |
The Colombian corridor could lose viability. | Loss of corridor viability due to regulatory window closure. | Nominalization + causal phrase |
Root Cause Field — Modal Perfects + Passive
Root cause analysis explains why the risk exists or materialized. Use modal perfects in the past (what should / could / ought to have happened) combined with passive structures.
Root cause language | Example | Function |
should have been + p.p. | The preliminary register should have been initiated at contract signing. | Identifies missed obligation |
ought to have + p.p. | The legal review ought to have flagged this clause at Phase 1. | Identifies missed professional duty |
could have been + p.p. | This risk could have been identified during the initial due diligence review. | Identifies missed opportunity |
must have + p.p. | A systemic gap in the contract review process must have existed for this to occur. | Logical deduction about cause |
can't have been + p.p. | This clause can't have been overlooked unintentionally given its position in the document. | Deduction that implies intent |
Mitigation Field — Obligation + Future Passive + Conditional
Mitigation describes what must be done now or what will be done. Use obligation modals (must / should / is required to), future passives, and conditional hedges.
Mitigation language | Example | Function |
must be + p.p. + deadline | The risk register must be submitted no later than 14 days before the phase-gate review. | Non-negotiable obligation |
should be + p.p. | A contract review checklist should be implemented before the next engagement. | Recommended action |
is required to + base verb | The project director is required to confirm compliance with Clause 9.1 in writing. | Formal assignment of duty |
In the event that… + conditional | In the event that Vantage enforces Clause 7.3, legal counsel should be engaged immediately. | Contingency planning |
provided that + clause | The risk is considered manageable provided that the register is submitted on schedule. | Conditional mitigation |
Phrasal Verbsput (sth) on record — to document something formally so it cannot be disputed later: "Patricia put the assessment on record to protect Altius." rule (sth) out — to eliminate a possibility formally: "We cannot rule out retroactive enforcement of Clause 7.3." run (sth) past (sb) — to ask someone to review something informally before it is finalised: "Santiago ran the register past Patricia before submitting." |
Phase 3 Risk Register — Completed Entries
Read Santiago and Marco's completed risk register entries. Each root cause and mitigation section uses the language patterns from Section C.
ALTIUS CONSULTING GROUP — PHASE 3 RISK REGISTER Engagement: Vantage Capital Infrastructure Fund — Colombia Fast-Track Prepared by: S. Reyes / M. Delgado | Reviewed by: P. Lam (Legal) ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R-001 | Contractual — Clause 7.3 Retroactive Enforcement Description: Risk of retroactive enforcement by Vantage of Clause 7.3, relating to the non-submission of a preliminary risk register prior to the Phase 2 presentation. Likelihood: Low | Impact: High Root cause: The preliminary register ought to have been initiated at the point of contract signing. The legal review process should have identified this obligation explicitly. It must have been omitted from the Phase 2 preparation checklist, as no record of its discussion has been found. Mitigation: Clause 7.3 cannot be retroactively enforced without formal notice. Legal counsel must be engaged immediately if Vantage raises the matter. A formal response should be prepared and held in readiness. Owner: P. Lam (Legal)
R-002 | Contractual — Clause 9.1 Register Deadline Description: Failure to submit the Phase 3 risk register within the fourteen-day window specified in Clause 9.1, resulting in potential contract default. Likelihood: Low (deadline is manageable) | Impact: High Root cause: The deadline could have been missed had work not begun immediately upon receipt of the scope document. The delay in initiating the register needn't have occurred — legal clearance was never required to begin. Mitigation: The completed register must be submitted no later than the deadline stated in Clause 9.1. Internal sign-off should be completed 48 hours prior to submission. Provided that the current timeline holds, this risk is considered manageable. Owner: S. Reyes
R-003 | Regulatory — Senate Committee Approval Timeline Description: Risk of material delay to Phase 3 procurement resulting from an extension of the Colombian Senate committee approval schedule beyond current projections. Likelihood: Medium | Impact: High Root cause: Accurate forecasting of this risk could not have been achieved without access to the committee minutes, which were not available at the proposal stage. The timeline ought to have been modelled with a wider variance range. It was not. Mitigation: Rodrigo Mendez must be contacted within five working days to confirm the current committee schedule. In the event of a delay exceeding four weeks, the Phase 3 timeline should be formally revised and resubmitted to Vantage for approval. Owner: S. Reyes / R. Mendez (external) |
Support Free English Resources
These lessons are free for everyone. Your contribution keeps them that way.
Support the WorkSecure payment — no account required.