## 3 Materials and Methods
### Questionnaire Design
#### 3.1.3 Questionnaire Definition  
The resulting questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section gathered demographic information to categorize the interviewee based on their role, work experience, and the manufacturing organization they belong to. The second section followed the presentation of the aforementioned stories. In this section, the questions were designed to assess the four abilities of the RAG model. Based on the two stories and the two perspectives to be considered, four subsections were defined:  
* Sub-section 1: external perspective, accident event;
* Sub-section 2: internal perspective, accident event;Sub-section 3: external perspective, near-miss event;
* Sub-section 4: internal perspective, near-miss event.  
Specifically, the external perspective explores the importance the respondent places on specific systems and actions in the context of the Compeso company in question. The internal perspective, on the other hand, examines the presence of systems and the implementation of actions within the respondent's own organization. This dual approach was applied to both accident and near-miss scenarios. So, based on the dimensions of the RAG model, the questionnaire investigated the perceived importance and the actual level of implementation of the following systems/actions (each corresponding to one question), totaling 15 questions for each scenario.  
* Monitor: a system to notify when Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is not being worn (Q1); a system for monitoring and recording real-time environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity) (Q2).
* Respond: a system to prevent entry in industrial/operational areas without PPE (Q3); a system to shut down technology when anomalies are detected (Q4).
* Anticipate: awareness programs on the importance of PPE (Q5); updates to risk assessments related to new technologies (Q6); training on how to handle unforeseen situations (Q7); training on the proper use of PPE (Q8); ensuring PPE is provided for every worker (Q9); risk assessments for changes in the environment where technology is used (e.g., maintenance work, introduction of external personnel) (Q10); communication to staff about significant changes to the environment (e.g., maintenance work, introduction of external personnel) (Q11).
* Learn: investigations into the causes of accidents (Q12); improving knowledge of the technology involved in incidents (Q13); revising procedures for PPE usage (Q14); updating internal communication processes related to changes in environmental conditions (Q15).  
The full questionnaire (Table A1) and a table summarizing RAG dimensions, related items, and rationale (Table A2) are reported in Appendix A.  
As is evident, the number of items across the different RAG dimensions of the questionnaire is not fully balanced. However, this approach is commonly used in the literature [10; 11], given RAG's inherent flexibility to be adapted to various contexts and investigative needs [9].  
The questionnaire was initially pretested with two manufacturing companies to assess the clarity and readability of the questions. Following this, a focus group composed of researchers and OSH specialists conducted a qualitative review. This expert panel identified and corrected minor typographical errors and inconsistencies, further refining the instrument. The questions were then revised and finalized to ensure their clarity, comprehension, and appropriateness for the companies involved. While a [PERSON]'s alpha analysis yielded a reliability score of 0.85, it is important to emphasize that the objective of this study was not to develop a universally generalizable tool. Instead, the questionnaire was designed as a context-specific instrument, tailored to the operational environments of the participating companies, and thus, a broader validation was not pursued.