MAINSYSTEMS 
combine process, risk, assessment and measures in a coherent matrix
1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards
In this video we will consolidate a skill: combine process, risk, assessment and measures in a coherent matrix. 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. A ZIntPK integrity plan applies to specified entities under KPK guidelines. For other organisations the approach is recommended practice. Risk assessment is not a finding of guilt or a copy of Portugal’s RGPC.
The plan changes with processes, incidents or established ineffectiveness. Signing an old document again is not a substantive update. Obliged entities follow monitoring and reporting guidelines.
Apply the following rule: ZZPri covers information about breaches of rules applicable in Slovenia obtained in a work-related context. Protection requires reasonable grounds for believing the information true at the time of reporting and use of a route under the Act. Article 5 excludes protection where the report is made two years or more after the breach ceased. This is not a retention period. Relevant previous and developing relationships, facilitators and connected persons are covered under statutory conditions.
2. Practical Implementation & Procedure
Complete a row with process, cause, event, consequence, likelihood, impact, level and measures. Add owners and monitoring evidence. Validate with the implementing department and plan coordinator. Check activity coverage and required approval. Prepare dissemination and communication under the entity's regime, distinguishing legal requirements from internal choices. 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 supplier-favouritism control fails because the substitute reviewer lacks the necessary knowledge. The team improves competence and testing rather than adding a signature. 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: Is a promise to be more careful sufficient? 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. Correct the specific cause and verify the new result. A general intention does not replace an executable control.
One mistake to avoid is: filling cells to finish the document without testing the link between risk and measure.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The system automatically marks a report protected because it contains the word corruption. What has it not checked?
Assess facts, the work-related context, reasonable grounds at reporting, the chosen route and statutory conditions, including time since the breach ceased. The label does not determine protection. Clarify missing information safely and proportionately.