Collection and integrity

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

Today we will learn to preserve provenance and reliability. 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 investigations need a defined mandate, authority limits and verifiable actions. Internal investigators gain no police powers. Separate fact collection, evaluation and liability decisions under the applicable procedure.

Content, provenance and acquisition affect reliability. Distinguish copies and originals. Technical logs do not alone explain motives.

Apply the following rule: Article 7(1) requires information to be kept for at least five years from the last decision in examining that information. The Prosecutor’s Office may give a reasoned instruction extending an institution’s retention period. Receipt or technical task closure does not automatically start the period. Clearly irrelevant personal data must not be collected, and accidentally collected irrelevant data must be destroyed immediately under Article 7(4). Align retention with the GDPR, confidentiality and lawful procedural needs.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Collect relevant lawfully accessible material. Record receiver, time, source and changes. Restrict access and identify missing context. 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.

At each step, compare the information available with what is still needed for the decision. Arrange continuity when the designated worker is absent. A substitute receives only the information needed for the task, and their actions must remain verifiable.

Mark an unanswered question as a fact to verify. Identify who could confirm it and what access they actually need. A correct exercise choice alone does not show that the reasoning is understood. If the answer depends on an additional fact, state that condition explicitly.

For the workplace task, name the person who can approve the change and the person who will check that it works. Produce a concrete verifiable action, rather than only a promise to follow rules. Check effects on access rights and user information. Record questions that your organisation still needs to resolve.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

One spreadsheet cell changes in a copy. The investigator compares versions and records the difference without calling the copy unchanged. 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 naming a file original prove authenticity? 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. Verifiable provenance and version history are needed. Mark unknowns and corroborate them with other sources.

One mistake to avoid is: treating an unchecked copy as an unchanged original.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The system deletes every file five years after receipt. What is wrong?

Article 7 starts the period at the last decision in examining the information, and five years is a minimum. Check possible reasoned extensions and procedural needs. At the same time, accidentally collected and clearly irrelevant personal data must be destroyed immediately. Record the retention basis, restrict access and include exports and copies in the review.