Module Learning Objective

choose the next step from information and risk

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

Today we will learn to choose the next step from information and risk. 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. Handling connects receipt, initial decisions, dialogue and a reasoned outcome. Latvian acknowledgement, recognition, decision notification and progress information are separate events. Closed status does not prove all actions or lawful retention.

Assessment covers statutory features, danger, conflicts and sufficient information. It is not a final guilt finding. Urgent protection or preservation within powers and proportionality may precede full fact-finding.

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

Identify known facts and gaps. Appoint a suitable handler and secure clarification. Consider special procedures or authority involvement. Record direction, recognition decision and grounds. 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 report alleges altered procurement documents and names the manager. Check involvement and preservation before routing there. 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: Must initial assessment prove the breach? 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. It selects a justified next step and initial recognition. Later work supports final findings, while necessary protection may occur sooner.

One mistake to avoid is: presenting an initial direction as a final finding.

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.