Organising categories and case assignment

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video's topic is organising categories and case assignment. By the end, you should be able to use categories without automatically deciding protection. We will connect the information available, the criterion guiding the decision and the action that must be recorded. Follow the case and compare your answer with the proposed response. Configuration examples describe general working methods. Verify features in the actual system. Changes must connect permissions, procedures and Estonian legal requirements. Use fictional test cases so that verification creates no new confidentiality risk.

Categories organise topics and possible handlers. A mistaken category does not alter facts or establish lack of protection. Automatic allocation may create a conflict when a report names the default manager. Routing needs exceptions and substantive checks.

Apply the following rule: TÕRTKS section 2 covers work-related information about EU-law breaches in listed fields, including procurement, EU financial interests, data protection and EU restrictive measures. It does not automatically cover every employment dispute or corruption concern. KVS section 6 contains separate corruption-reporting protection that must be assessed on its own conditions.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Define categories and owners. Add an unclear-topic and conflict route. Test a report concerning the category owner. Record reclassification and avoid unnecessary circulation. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

A supplier-favouritism report goes automatically to the named procurement director. The organisation adds an impartial recipient and limits notifications. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Does a wrong category justify automatic closure? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. Assess the substance and justify appropriate routing. A category is a tool, not the final legal assessment or exemption from confidentiality.

One mistake to avoid is: deciding protection solely from a label.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A report is automatically called protected because it contains the word corruption. What check is missing?

Check the work-related connection, facts and TÕRTKS sections 2,3 and 13. Assess KVS section 6 separately where relevant. A form label does not confer every right. Identify an appropriate alternative route and limit disclosure if another procedure applies.