## 1 Introduction  
Probabilistic modelling of fire safety risks in high-rise residential buildings typically has included technical risks and errors, while ignoring the impacts of human and organizational risks resulting in significant underestimation of overall risks. It has been well recognized that human and organizational factors (HOFs) are the leading causes of most accidents, and literature in other related industries indicates that existing models that ignore human and organizational errors (HOEs) underestimate risk, possibly by as much as 80% [1, 2, 3]. From a practical viewpoint, it is essential to adopt technical, human, and organizational risks for a realistic fire risk assessment of a building design [2]. Moreover, during the operational phase of a building, the reliability of the fire equipment should not be considered constant, and its aging over time must be addressed to derive more realistic risk values [4]. Prior studies provide estimated effects of HOEs on risk in other industries such as nuclear plants, aviation and offshore oil platforms, but existing literature does not address or quantify the impact of HOEs on risks during fire events in high-rise buildings. Recent fatalities in high-rise residential fires, e.g., Grenfell, London, have demonstrated the urgent need to consider HOEs in probabilistic risk assessments (PRA) for high-rise residential buildings [2, 5]. However, this is yet to be reflected in the current state-of-the-art PRA for high-rise buildings given that current models still consider only technical factors [6]. Meanwhile, various frameworks and models are available in other industries such as nuclear plants, aviation or offshore platforms, e.g., [PERSON] et al. [7], [PERSON] and [PERSON] [8], [PERSON] [9], [PERSON] et al. [10], [PERSON] et al. [11] and [PERSON] et al. [12]. Recently, [PERSON] et al. [13] have proposed a socio-technical system (STS) approach to characterize and incorporate risk measures into building regulation by viewing building regulatory systems (BRS) as complex STSs, where institutions, technology and people interact to mitigate risk to a societally tolerable level. [PERSON] and [PERSON] assert the importance of human and organizational risk to the development of new building codes [14]. In another study [15], cultural factors, barriers and influences, training, communication, supervisor role, employee participation and risk-taking behaviours were considered in fire safety analysis in a mining industry. Similar to high rise buildings, safety analysis of wildfire is equally challenging. In [16], risk assessment and risk elimination (like administrative control) models are used in a dynamic environment of wildfires. However, to date, there is a dearth of studies that incorporate technical, human and organizational risks in a PRA specific to the building domain. Therefore, the aim of this study is to address this methodological gap. Deterministic and probabilistic analysis are two common methods to perform fire risk assessment [17]. In a deterministic fire engineering approach, worst-case scenarios are considered, and it is assumed that there will be no failure of fire safety systems such as sprinklers or smoke detectors. This oversight results in a failure to account for the reliability of such systems. In addition, uncertainties are not explicitly considered in deterministic approaches. On the other hand, probabilistic fire safety engineering approaches consider all possible scenarios, as well as their consequences and likelihood of occurrences [18]. Probabilistic approaches deploy tools like fault tree analysis (FTA) and event tree analysis (ETA) to analyse the cause of a failure and its consequences if a failure occurs. Prescriptive building codes may include provisions that result from immediate reactions after major fire incidents, can be difficult to use with new technologies and do not adequately address new building innovations.