Configuring communications, alerts and deadlines

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video focuses on how to configure alerts that support deadline compliance without exposing information. 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 demonstrations in this course use a generic platform and fictional data. Field names depend on the chosen product. The aim is to understand which settings to look for and how to verify the result, keeping technical administration rights separate from access to case content.

The Portuguese internal channel has two different deadlines. First, acknowledge receipt within seven days. Second, communicate measures planned or taken and the reasons for them within three months of receipt. The three-month period never replaces the seven-day acknowledgement deadline. Communicating measures does not necessarily mean the investigation has concluded. A three-month period must not automatically be converted into 90 days. Configuration must reflect the applicable period and be checked by the responsible team.

National rule: For the internal channel, notify the reporting person of receipt within 7 days. Communicate the measures planned or taken and the reasons for them within 3 months of receiving the report. If the reporting person requests it, communicate the outcome within 15 days of completion. The 3-month period is not a general deadline for completing the investigation.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Record receipt, configure advance alerts and assign responsibility for responding. Separate system notifications from information actually provided to the reporting person. Use neutral subjects and messages without factual allegations. Test different receipt dates, absences and delivery failures. Where anonymity prevents external contact, use the available secure follow-up facility. 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 system alerts the manager, but the manager communicates no measures to the reporting person. The dashboard marks the alert complete. The team changes the configuration to distinguish an alert dealt with from a communication sent, recording its content and sending date. 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 marking an alert as read demonstrate compliance with the duty to communicate with the reporting person? 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. Evidence of the required communication through an appropriate means must exist. An alert is an internal aid; the obligation concerns information actually communicated to the reporting person within the applicable period.

One mistake to avoid is: using an internal notification's status as proof of a reply to the reporting person.

The platform uses a fixed 90-day period for every country, starting when someone opens the message. Can this setting be retained?

Not without validating the local rule. Use the correct starting event and unit, distinguish acknowledgement from follow-up and allow only permitted extensions. Test receipt outside working hours, month-end dates and the responsible person's absence. Opening a message does not automatically change the legal date of receipt.