Collecting and preserving material

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

Today we will learn to keep provenance and changes traceable. Throughout the video, consider the difference between knowing a rule and applying it to a decision. We will work through an example, identify a possible failure and develop a response that can be used at work. Internal-investigation techniques are recommended methods. They confer no police powers and do not displace employment or privacy law. The aim is impartial fact-finding, a reasoned evidential basis and appropriate corrections.

Evidence depends on content, provenance and integrity. Establish lawful access before collection. Altering an original can destroy context. A digital trail supports assessment but does not automatically establish the truth of the document’s contents.

Apply the following rule: Section 10(3) prescribes three years and refers to feedback under section 11(4), while final-outcome feedback now appears in section 11(6). Do not conceal the cross-reference issue or automatically replace it with receipt. Document the legally confirmed starting event before automating deletion. Government Regulation 12 of 2 February 2026 covers the report, collected material and media, review of oral-report minutes and destruction under a procedure approved by the organisation’s head.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Record source, time, grounds and handlers. Use controlled working copies and protect originals. Restrict access and record important actions. Obtain specialist support where required. 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

An invoice is edited in the investigation folder without preserving its original. Its initial value becomes unclear. Revised practice separates source material and analysis copies. 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 having a file prove it was never altered? 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. Check provenance and handling. Integrity and substantive reliability are related but distinct issues.

One mistake to avoid is: modifying the original during analysis.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The system deletes every case five years after receipt. Is that correct for Estonia?

No. The three-year period in section 10(3) references feedback rather than automatically receipt. The current cross-reference issue needs a documented legal resolution. Apply Regulation 12 and privacy rules to related material and copies. Do not keep everything indefinitely without grounds.