MAINSYSTEMS 
submit a report and preserve secure dialogue
1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards
This video focuses on how to submit a report and preserve secure dialogue. Follow the sequence of decisions in the example rather than simply memorising a list. Notice who is involved, what information is needed and the expected result. These points help turn the content into a practice that another person can verify. 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.
Understand the recipient and follow-up before submission. An empty name field does not guarantee anonymity; attachments may identify authors. Distinguish section 6 formal requirements from section 10(3) protection for later-identified reporters.
Apply the following rule: Section 6(1) requires identifying information for formal reports. However, since 2026 section 10(3) protects people initially reporting without those requirements who are subsequently identified as whistleblowers and meet the statutory features. Section 11 requires pseudonymisation after recognition subject to exceptions, restricted access and proper identity protection. Anonymity differs from confidentiality.
2. Practical Implementation & Procedure
Use the official route, read guidance and verify recipient. Enter facts and review attachments. Check submission and protect any reference or follow-up method supplied. Use fictional data in tests. 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
A test user omits their name but it appears in an attachment. Guidance explains contents and actual confidentiality before submission. 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 an empty name field prove complete anonymity? 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. Attachments, event details or technical data may identify someone. Understand actual capabilities, limits and shared contents.
One mistake to avoid is: inferring anonymity solely from an absent name.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The site promises anonymity but requires name and an identity-document copy. How should the contradiction be corrected?
Distinguish anonymous submission from formal reporting with section 6 data. Identification requirements do not themselves justify a document copy. Explain section 10(3) protection for a later-identified person and section 11 pseudonymisation. Align functionality, wording and minimisation.