For GB890's second unit, the problem evidence memo shows the Wexford injury pattern exists at identifiable sites, using records someone outside the company could check. Searches like "gb 890 unit 2 assignment example", "gb890 unit 2 sample" and "gb890 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished GB890 Unit 2 problem evidence memo looks like
Five pages addressed to the committee chair. A one-paragraph problem statement opens, still phrased as the question from Unit 1. Table 1 follows, one row per plant: recordable cases across three years, hours worked, the resulting incident rate, and the share of cases among associates within ninety days of placement, all bracketed as the candidate's own composite values. A paragraph explains that each plant's 300A summary is submitted to OSHA electronically and published, so totals can be checked against a public record. Table 2 reports the meeting tally: in [5] of [24] observed shift starts, safety came up beyond the scripted stretching routine. A near-miss section notes that only [9] reports came from the three highest-rate plants in a year. What the evidence cannot establish is listed at the end.
How a GB890 Unit 2 example is structured
Evidence is ordered from most checkable to least. Published summaries come first because a committee member could verify them without trusting the candidate; internal logs follow because they add the tenure and employer detail that public totals omit; the meeting tally comes last as the softest item, one observer counting on selected days. Rates are computed on hours so that plants of different size can be compared, and the memo shows the formula once. Agency temporaries are reported as a share of cases set against their share of hours, since a raw count would mislead in a workforce that is [40] percent agency. Near-miss figures are introduced cautiously: few reports may mean few hazards or little reporting, and the memo admits it cannot tell which. Limitations then name the observer's role as safety manager as a risk to the tally.
Checkable before trusted
Each plant's annual summary is public, so the case totals in Table 1 can be matched against a record the candidate does not control. The memo marks which figures a reader can verify and which rest on internal access.
Rates on hours, not headcount
Cases per 200,000 hours worked let a 120-person bun plant sit beside a 450-person bread plant. The formula appears once, with bracketed inputs, so a reader can recompute any row from the table alone.
Agency share against agency hours
Temporaries account for [61] percent of cases and roughly [40] percent of hours. Presenting both numbers keeps the overrepresentation claim honest and shows its actual size instead of implying one.
Twenty-four shift starts
The candidate attended shift-start meetings on randomly drawn days and recorded whether safety came up after the scripted stretch. The tally is described as a single observer's count and weighted accordingly in the argument.
What the evidence leaves open
Nothing in the memo shows why injuries cluster. Low near-miss counts are ambiguous, the meeting sample is small, and the logs record injuries rather than the conversations the question is actually about.
Where marks go in GB890 Unit 2
Evidence that stays national, food manufacturing is dangerous and here is the federal rate, is the weakness GB890 readers flag most often in this memo, because the prompt asks for a condition in a place someone could visit. Figures without denominators draw the next complaint: counts of injuries tell little until hours worked are known, and the agency comparison collapses without each group's share of hours. Memos presenting near-miss scarcity as proof of danger overread an ambiguous number. Some readers catch an observer who is also the safety manager, left unmentioned by the memo. Labeling each source by what it can establish, and ranking sources by how independently they could be checked, lifts a memo. A closing list of what remains unshown usually signals a writer who separates evidence of a pattern from evidence of a cause.
Get a GB890 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Name the records bearing on your problem that your employer holds, and mark which ones you have leave to use. Add the Unit 2 memo instructions and rubric. A custom memo built around those sources, ranked by how independently a reader could check each one, comes back within 24-48h, and the first is free.
GB890 Unit 2 questions, answered
What counts as local evidence for a GB890 problem?
Records tied to an identifiable organization or site: logs, internal reports, published filings, documented observations, or reported experience gathered with permission. National statistics can frame the problem but cannot show it exists where you work. The strongest memos combine at least one source a reader could verify independently with internal records adding the detail public sources leave out.
Should the memo use real company figures?
Only with permission and at a level of disclosure your organization accepts. Many candidates present approximate or rounded figures, or describe the site without naming it, and say so in the memo. The sample brackets its composite values for that reason. What matters to the reader is that the figures could be checked by someone with appropriate access, not that they appear in full.
Is a low near-miss count good or bad news?
It is ambiguous, and the memo should say so. Few reports can mean few hazards, a workforce that does not report, or a form nobody can find. Treating the number as proof either way overreaches. Pairing it with another source, such as observed hazards or the injury pattern, helps show which reading is more plausible without claiming to settle it.