## 3 Results
### Risk Reduction Outcomes
#### 3.2.3 Composite Risk Score Comparison  
To synthesize the multidimensional benefits of the proposed system, a composite fire risk index was calculated by aggregating the individual scores for life safety, property damage, and business interruption. Each dimension was weighted equally (1:1:1) in accordance with NFPA 551 guidance, and risk values were normalized on a 0-10 scale, where higher scores indicate greater risk exposure. Table 6 presents the structured methodology employed for fire risk assessment in accordance with internationally recognized guidelines. The process integrates ISO 31000:2018 for general risk management and NFPA 551:2022 for fire-specific risk analysis, supported by quantitative modeling through PD 7974-7 [63]. Each stage--ranging from scenario identification to residual risk treatment--was executed systematically to quantify the proposed system's impact on fire-related hazards. This comprehensive framework ensures that life safety, property protection, and operational resilience are evaluated under a unified probabilistic structure. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline \hline
**Stage** & **Applicable Standard** & **Core Activities** & **Deliverables** \\ \hline Risk Identification & ISO 31000:2018, & Derivation of five fire scenarios (electrical, cooking, & \\  & Clause 7.2.2 & smoldering, flashover, fuel spill) & Event List \\ Risk Analysis & NFPA 551:2022, & Event-tree and fault-tree modeling using 10,000 Monte & Probability (\(\lambda\)) and \\  & Section 5 & Carlo simulations based on PD 7974-7 with 1\% failure rate & \\ Risk Evaluation & ISO 31000:2018, & 5 \(\times\) 5 risk matrix (Likelihood–Impact), selection using & \\  & Clause 7.2.4 & ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) criteria & Risk Ranking \\ Risk Treatment & NFPA 1250:2020 [64], & Deployment of the proposed system with RV \(\times\) CV &
\begin{tabular}{l} Mitigation measures, \\ residual risk levels \\ \end{tabular} \\  & Section 4 & strategies (detection, suppression, isolation, clean agent) & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: This table outlines the step-by-step fire risk assessment process based on ISO 31000:2018 and NFPA 551:2022, including scenario identification, quantitative analysis, impact evaluation, and residual risk treatment. Each phase is aligned with specific methodologies to ensure consistency, traceability, and regulatory compliance. Table 7 presents the results of a mixed-method fire risk evaluation comparing the proposed integrated suppression and ventilation platform with a conventional system consisting of sprinklers and mechanical exhaust fans. This analysis was structured according to the ISO 31000:2018 risk management framework, incorporating specific guidance from NFPA 551 (2022) on fire risk assessment and PD 7974-7 (2019) on probabilistic fire safety design. Risk scores were averaged over 10 simulations per scenario and reported with standard deviations. Statistical significance of score reductions was tested using paired-sample \(t\)-tests, confirming consistent improvement (\(p<0.01\)) in all categories for the proposed system. Five representative fire scenarios were considered--originating from electrical faults, cooking, smoking materials, flammable liquid spills, and gas leakage--reflecting statistically dominant patterns in Korean apartment fire statistics (2019-2023; annual average \(\approx 3800\) cases, \(p\approx 0.012\)). Risk likelihoods were derived from these historical fire frequencies, while consequence ratings were informed by simulation outputs from Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS v6.9), converted into fractional effective dose (FED) metrics to quantify occupant harm from heat, smoke, and toxic exposure. The results indicate a mean risk score reduction of approximately 73% (calculated as \(\Sigma\Delta\)Proposed/\(\Sigma\)Baseline) across key domains (life safety, asset loss, business continuity, and CO\({}_{2}\) impact).