Controlled case-study protocol
A case study is not a vehicle for converting a disputed allegation into a public fact.
Material is bounded by the research question, anonymised where necessary and supported by a source register. Personal experience is relevant only where it tests how an institutional system functions.
Claim-status taxonomy
Directly supported by identified evidence.Allegation
Asserted but not independently established.Disputed Matter
Materially contested by relevant actors.Documented Discrepancy
Conflict between records or versions.Monitoring Inference
Reasoned but non-final analytical inference.Legal Characterisation
Legal position, not an adjudicated fact unless stated.Open Question
Evidence remains insufficient or unavailable.
From Accounting Signal to Institutional Closure
A controlled longitudinal GRF case study of ArcelorMittal Zenica / ArcelorMittal Group, 2021–2026, published 28 August 2026 with an evidence cut-off of 27 August 2026.
The study tests whether a material governance signal generated timely protection, independent investigation, auditable remediation and institutional learning. The author is also the reporting person and a participant in the event sequence; this requires enhanced source discipline and independent verification.
Publication safeguards
- No sensitive medical, tax, personal or commercially confidential data.
- No final legal qualification of open proceedings.
- Source access and redaction decisions documented.
- Competing explanations and break conditions retained.
- Conclusions limited to the level supported by the record.