MAINSYSTEMS 
distinguish case follow-up from institutional reporting
1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards
In this video we will consolidate a skill: distinguish case follow-up from institutional reporting. Use the case to test what you would do in a similar situation. We will explain the proposed response step by step so that you can understand each choice and recognise when more information would be needed. Authorities have different powers. Receiving reports, advising reporting persons, investigating breaches and collecting statistics are different functions. This course explains recipient selection and information preparation. Demonstrations use fictional data and send no real reports.
Article 12 requires notice of redirection within three working days of redirection. Under article 17, entities answer reasoned ANI document requests within fifteen working days of receipt. External feedback is due within three months, or six in justified cases, from receipt of the report. Communicate resolution within five days after examination ends. Statistics follow a separate flow.
Apply the following rule: ANI provides an external platform and information about advice. The internal channel and external reporting to ANI are separate routes. Reasoned requests for documents from ANI must receive a response within 15 working days of receipt under article 17(5); this is not the deadline for informing the reporting person.
2. Practical Implementation & Procedure
Verify authenticity, competence, deadline and necessary data for each request, retaining evidence of the response. Article 7 requires records and statistics from the entities it identifies. Article 15 provides for annual publication of ANI statistics. Article 35 concerns annual authority-to-ANI and ANI-to-Commission data. Do not present the latter flows as identical duties of every company. 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 organisation receives one request for annual figures and another for case clarification. The team separates them. Aggregated figures follow the relevant reporting duty, while authorised staff assess case documents and transmit appropriately after verifying the request. 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: Should annual indicators and individual case documents use the same distribution list? 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. Distribution must match purpose, competence and need to know. Aggregated reporting may have different recipients. Record the sharing basis and prevent statistical procedures from exposing identities.
One mistake to avoid is: turning management reporting into general distribution of whistleblowing cases.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The team presents every integrity instrument as mandatory in every country. How should the message be revised?
Distinguish what national law actually requires, the conditions for its application to the entity and the proposed good practices. The specific rule just examined must appear in the corresponding procedure. Each duty needs a source; each management choice needs a purpose, an owner and evidence of implementation.