Module Learning Objective

prepare a verifiable neutral account

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

Today we will learn to prepare a verifiable neutral account. 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. The reporter need not conclusively establish a breach. Describe work-related facts honestly and choose an appropriate route. Examples cover preparation, secure submission and follow-up. Protection depends on Latvian statutory conditions.

A useful account explains event, time, place and information source. Precision does not require invented facts. Label an approximate date as approximate. Personal insults can obscure what needs checking.

Apply the following rule: The law covers work-related information about breaches that may harm the public interest. It is not limited to the Directive’s listed EU-law fields. Purely personal grievances and knowingly false information are excluded; sections 2–3 also contain specific limits.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Prepare a short chronology. Separate direct knowledge, others’ accounts and inference. Identify known documents and omit unrelated private details. Mark uncertainties so the handler can identify clarification needs. 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 draft calls a manager consistently dishonest. The revision describes an instruction, date and document reference that can be checked. 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: Which is more useful: a label or a specific event? 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.

The event and knowledge source. It permits verification without presuming a conclusion about character.

One mistake to avoid is: presenting assumptions as known facts.

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

Check work context, possible public-interest harm, belief in truth and statutory conditions. A category does not replace sections 1–3 assessment. A personal complaint may also contain a public-interest breach; assess facts rather than title. Record reasons and necessary clarification.

National Legal Framework: Trauksmes celšanas likums, transposing Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law.