Accountability workflow
Escalation is triggered when a mandated action, deadline, response or remedy fails its defined test.
Evidence hierarchy and source control
| Control | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Source identification | Record author, date, version, provenance and access condition. |
| Evidence freeze | Prevent later information from contaminating the original assessment window. |
| Temporal reconstruction | Establish who knew what, when, and with what authority. |
| Audit trail | Retain the path from source through coding to conclusion. |
| Evidence hierarchy | Weight direct records, corroboration, statements and inference according to their limits. |
Claim-status classification
Every material proposition receives a visible status: confirmed fact, alleged fact, disputed fact, documented discrepancy, analytical or monitoring inference, legal characterisation, open question, or not established.
Competing explanations and outcome tests
A preferred explanation is tested against plausible alternatives. Break conditions identify what evidence would weaken or defeat the inference. Corrective action is not treated as effective merely because it was announced: ownership, deadline, implementation evidence and outcome must be tested.
GRF v2.2 controlled research protocol
The controlled protocol specifies P0–P4 evidence thresholds, capability/exposure separation, assessor coding controls, inter-rater reliability, synthetic test fixtures and safeguards against outcome leakage and retrospective causation.