Classification and referral exercises

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will consolidate a skill: justify triage decisions where information is incomplete. Use the case to test what you would do in a similar situation. We will explain the proposed response step by step so that you can understand each choice and recognise when more information would be needed. Triage organises the initial response without replacing investigation. It determines who should assess the case, what information is missing and which measures cannot wait. Intake must remain protected even before a conclusion on the report's legal classification.

Good triage depends on consistent criteria, not identical answers for every case. A sound record sets out the subject, gaps, risks and reasons for referral. A decision may be provisional. Revising a classification when new facts emerge demonstrates diligence, provided the change is explained.

Apply the following rule: The Ombudswoman is the competent external reporting authority and can be approached directly without prior internal reporting. The November 2025 amendment extends the same protection, subject to statutory conditions, to direct reports to the police or State Attorney’s Office within their competence. Where those bodies are informed of retaliation or its risk, they must forward the report to the Ombudswoman without delay. Do not generalise this rule to every direct report to any authority. Public disclosure has separate Article 26 conditions.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Assess three communications: a scheduling dispute, possible bid manipulation and an anonymous message without facts. For each, choose clarification, verification, referral or another reasoned decision under national law. Falling outside whistleblower protection does not remove possible obligations under other rules. Record the reason and limits of available information. 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

The scheduling dispute initially appears to concern employment. In clarification, the person says the change followed a report of wrongdoing and came with a threat. The team also begins assessing possible retaliation while preserving both aspects of the case. 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: Should the initial classification remain unchanged for consistency even after new facts emerge? 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. Consistency lies in the criteria applied. New facts may justify a different classification and further measures. Record what changed, why and who is responsible for additional follow-up.

One mistake to avoid is: treating the first assigned category as irreversible.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. An advice page is presented as the sole destination for every report. What check is missing?

The recipient's powers and role must be confirmed. Advice, external receipt, investigation and protection may belong to different bodies. Also check the national conditions for the selected route. User information must help people find the correct procedure without requiring steps that do not exist in law.