How incidents fit the rest of TPAS
Who can do this
incident:read. A gate operator logs them
(incident:create), a contractor sees their own organisation's, an
administrator sees all. Insights → Incidents.
Three things that all sound like "letting someone in by hand"
They are different records, written for different reasons, and using the wrong one leaves a hole somewhere else:
| You use it when | What it writes | |
|---|---|---|
| Incident (these pages) | Verify Access said Denied and you let them through anyway | An access-failure incident, naming the override and its reason |
| Manual entry (Recording a manual entry) | Verify Access said Authorised but the reader never picked the badge up | The gate crossing itself, flagged Manual — exactly what a reader read would have written |
| Log manual entry (Logging a record by hand) | You are transcribing the paper record UWA keeps | A UWA access record, for reconciliation |
The short version: Authorised but not read → Manual entry. Denied but admitted → incident. Paperwork → Log manual entry.
An incident is never a substitute for the crossing. If you admitted somebody against a Denied verdict, the incident explains the decision and a logged record supplies the crossing.
Knock-on effects
A manual access is a crossing the automatic system never saw. That has knock-on effects worth knowing:
- Log the crossing too. The incident records why you overrode the system; it does not record the crossing itself. Use Log access record as well, or the crossing will be missing from reconciliation and from the bill.
- Fix the credential. An incident about a lost card is only half done until the card is reported lost so it stops working.
- Repeats are a signal. Several Not reading incidents at the same gate in a week is a failing reader, not five unlucky cards. Check Gate Devices and raise it.