MAINSYSTEMS 
map the data and people involved in a reporting case
1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards
In this video we will work through a concrete decision: map the data and people involved in a reporting case. The aim is to explain the criterion used and apply it to a workplace situation. We will start with the concept, move to the procedure and finish with a case to solve. Case files may contain information about reporting persons, witnesses and people concerned. The Polish Act and GDPR require assessment of purpose, scope and access. The course also covers retention, rights and incidents, distinguishing registers, case documentation and records in other proceedings.
Personal data concern identified or identifiable individuals. They include names, contacts, roles, images, opinions and details enabling indirect identification. Reports may contain health information, trade-union membership or alleged offences. Special categories and offence-related data need additional legal consideration. Labelling a file confidential does not change the nature of its contents.
Apply the following rule: Article 3 covers specified areas including corruption, public procurement, data protection and the financial interests of the state. Employment law is not a separate general category. Article 3(2) allows certain lawful internal rules and ethical standards within the internal procedure, without applying Chapters 4 and 5. Article 4 includes work-related contexts before and after a relationship. Protection requires Article 6 conditions and the appropriate reporting route.
2. Practical Implementation & Procedure
Map data subjects, categories, origin, purposes, recipients and storage locations. Identify who determines purposes and means and the supplier's role. Assess the proper legal basis. Consent is not an automatic solution for a legally required channel. Consent to record a communication serves a specific purpose and does not replace assessment of all processing. 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
An invoice-related report contains a witness’s name and unrelated health information. The handler needs the witness account but not irrelevant medical details. 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 information arriving in a form justify using all of it? 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. Assess necessity and the proper legal basis. Accidentally collected irrelevant data follow the statutory deletion rule.
One mistake to avoid is: using a consent checkbox to justify every type of channel processing indiscriminately.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The system automatically marks a report as protected because it contains the word corruption. What was not checked?
Read the facts and apply Articles 3, 4 and 6. A form category establishes neither statutory scope nor the reporting person’s reasonable grounds. If another procedure applies, identify it and limit sharing to necessary information. A broader internal policy does not automatically extend every statutory reporting route.