CSP-11 CSP-11 D2.06 · Domain 2 · Program Management · 25%
ETA Boolean
An event tree asks for the probability of a consequence path. Someone adds when they should multiply along a path, or multiplies across mutually exclusive end states incorrectly.
Updated . Independent CSP-11 practice. Not BCSP-endorsed. No pass guarantee.
Decision rule
ETA walks forward from an initiator. Success and failure branches both matter.
A pretty tree with no probabilities still shows order.
In 20 seconds
- ETA walks forward from an initiator.
- Success and failure branches both matter.
- ETA develops forward from an initiating event through success/failure branches.
- Boolean combinations of branch probabilities need independence honesty.
How to apply ETA Boolean
THEORY: Initiating event → barrier success/fail → outcomes. Shared barriers are not two events. CALC: If P given and independent, multiply along a path. FIELD: Vent path assumed always open. Add the fail branch. ASSESS: Stopping at the first success is the trap.
Worked case
Wrong first move: Draw only the happy path. Correct move: Branch success and failure; test independence.
Why the rule holds
Related: 23, 120.
Same rule, different setting
On a production platform or plant, eta boolean shows up when operations push throughput while a higher control is still open. Event tree analysis (ETA): initiate → ordered branch successes/failures → path probability = product along the path (independent branches as assumed). Prefer a system/design fix over a polished lower-row program that keeps the wells online.
On a busy jobsite, eta boolean shows up when schedule pressure sells a permit, rotation, or PPE package while design still can change. Event tree analysis (ETA): initiate → ordered branch successes/failures → path probability = product along the path (independent branches as assumed). Discriminate the open row before you laminate another card.
Picture / model
Framework → compute/classify → reject distractors → prefer system/design.
Exam traps
Original SafePath contrasts for ETA Boolean. These are study traps, not recalled BCSP items.
| Trap | Correct read |
|---|---|
| Path probability | Product along branches |
| End-state set | Often partitions — sums ≈1 |
| Success branch | As labeled |
| Failure branch | As labeled |
| FTA vs ETA | Causes vs event progression |
Field move
Path probability = 0.9 × 0.8 = 0.72.
Scenarios
Scenario 1 · Applied Scenario · CSP-11 D2.06
An event tree path has two independent success probabilities 0.9 then 0.8 on one path. Path probability?
Best action: 0.72
Why: Independent successes on one event-tree path multiply: 0.9 × 0.8 = 0.72. Adding them gives 1.70, which is not a probability of one path.
Scenario 2 · Applied Scenario · CSP-11 D2.06
Initiating event 0.02/y times path conditional probability 0.15. Consequence frequency?
Best action: 0.003 /y
Why: 0.02 per year times the conditional probability 0.15 is 0.003 per year. Adding the two numbers, or reporting either input alone, does not give the consequence frequency.
Scenario 3 · Applied Scenario · CSP-11 D2.06
A branch is labeled Boolean 'OK' after a safeguard succeeds. Meaning on the tree?
Best action: That branch follows the success outcome of the asked event
Why: Evaluate the best response. Failure modes, five-why, and barrier questions answer different problems. A five-why that ends in complacency misses a missing engineered barrier. Design that removes the initiator beats a laminated tree. Mean time between failures is not a reason to skip inspection. Thi…
If the stem says this
| Stem signal | Best direction |
|---|---|
| initiating event can be eliminated | prefer elimination |
| branches assumed independent wrongly | model dependence |
| need sequence from initiator | ETA appropriate |
| two answers work | higher hierarchy / system / design |
| layer success probability optimistic | challenge with proof-test data |
Check before you leave
- ✓ ETA develops forward from an initiating event through success/failure branches.
- ✓ Boolean combinations of branch probabilities need independence honesty.
- ✓ Protective layers appear as success branches that avert outcomes.
- ✓ Common-cause can correlate branches.
- ✓ Use ETA results to improve barriers earlier.
- ✓ Wrong tool if the need is only component FMEA without sequence.
Blueprint mapping
ETA Boolean is the SafePath study class for CSP-11 D2.06 inside CSP-11 Domain 2, Program Management (25%). A high-weight management domain focused on measuring performance, investigating incidents, managing change, building systems, leading people, controlling records and resources, and interpreting data.
SafePath uses the publicly posted CSP-11 outline as a study map. It does not reproduce official exam content, and it is not affiliated with or endorsed by BCSP or Pearson VUE.
Practice / flashcards / formulas
More classes in Program Management
Nearby lessons mapped to the same CSP-11 domain.
CSP-11 D2.06
Other classes on this task
Guides that use ETA Boolean
- Oil and gas safety study guideProcess safety, change, and investigations
- CSP application and exam guideEligibility, scheduling, and exam method
- CSP-11 exam prep guideDomain weights, sample items, and a study sequence
- CSP-11 blueprint and weightsSeven published domains and the class map
- Seven-domain study directoryScope, tasks, and links into each lesson
ETA Boolean study questions
- What decision does the ETA Boolean class train?
- ETA walks forward from an initiator. Success and failure branches both matter. This is independent SafePath CSP practice for CSP-11 D2.06. It is not an official BCSP item and it is not a pass guarantee.
- What exam trap shows up in ETA Boolean?
- A common miss treats this as sufficient: Path probability The stronger read is: Product along branches
- How does ETA Boolean map to the CSP-11 blueprint?
- SafePath maps this class to CSP-11 D2.06 in Domain 2, Program Management (25% of the published blueprint). Use the public outline for study planning. SafePath is not affiliated with or endorsed by BCSP.
Verify
Verify: Confirm current certification requirements with BCSP and technical requirements with the cited authoritative standard.