Requesting clarification and communicating

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video's topic is requesting clarification and communicating. By the end, you should be able to securely request information needed for a particular decision. We will connect the information available, the criterion guiding the decision and the action that must be recorded. Follow the case and compare your answer with the proposed response. 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.

Clarification must resolve a specific uncertainty. The reporter need not investigate everything or provide legal classification. Communication also requires confidentiality and minimisation. Handling powers do not justify every question.

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

Ask brief neutral questions about event, date or document and explain purpose. Communicate securely, avoid leading wording and record remaining uncertainty and its relevance. 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 lists payments without dates. The handler asks for period and invoice reference rather than speculation about motives. 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 better: what did you observe, or why did the colleague steal? 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 first seeks facts without presuming guilt. The second contains an unverified conclusion and may influence the answer. Ask for observation and source.

One mistake to avoid is: prompting confirmation of a predetermined accusation.

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.