MAINSYSTEMS 
identify initial facts and intake tasks in the case
1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards
In this video we will work through a concrete decision: identify initial facts and intake tasks in the case. The aim is to explain the criterion used and apply it to a workplace situation. We will start with the concept, move to the procedure and finish with a case to solve. Horizonte Equipamentos, all people and events are entirely fictional. This private company has 120 workers and an internal channel in Croatia. Five episodes follow a procurement report and prevention improvements. It is not specified to be a public contracting authority; public-procurement rules do not apply automatically.
Horizonte Equipamentos is purchasing machinery. An identified person confidentially alleges changed criteria after bids arrived and a family connection between supplier and procurement director. Two spreadsheet versions and a procedure reference are supplied. They are indications, not established favouritism. Assess statutory scope and protection on the actual information.
Apply the following rule: Article 4 covers the listed EU-law fields, EU financial interests and the internal market. The 2025 amendment adds restrictive-measures legislation in the Annex and specified offences against the economy and official duties, embezzlement and bribery of representatives. Other breaches of national law are covered where they also threaten the public interest. Check the work-related context in Article 6, the protection conditions in Article 12 and the exceptions and special rules in Articles 4 and 5.
2. Practical Implementation & Procedure
The confidential person records receipt, preserves relevant attachments and uses reference H-001. Prepare acknowledgement within seven days of receipt. Check secure contact, version origins, decision dates and the alleged connection. Access stays restricted. Protection does not require the person to prove the whole case beforehand. 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
One version includes a new criterion, but the file may have been a simulation. The difference matters, while its meaning remains unresolved. The team avoids claiming the change was definitely applied to selection. 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: What can be said now: different versions exist, or tender manipulation is proven? 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.
Only that different versions and an allegation were received. Establish document origins, dates and use. Intake records must distinguish observed attachments from unsupported conclusions.
One mistake to avoid is: turning the initial account into a definitive accusation before verification.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. A report is automatically classified as protected because it contains the word corruption. What check is missing?
Read the facts and apply the national scope, context and conditions for protection. A form label helps organise information but does not determine the legal framework. If the case falls outside the regime, identify an appropriate route without unnecessarily disclosing information.