Organising categories and case assignment

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video's topic is organising categories and case assignment. By the end, you should be able to configure an assignment process that considers conflicts of interest. 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. Examples use a generic platform and fictional data. Function names depend on the product. Suitability and compliance of a particular installation must be checked; the demonstration does not certify functions in a particular UNOVOX licence.

Categories help organise cases but must not automatically determine their legal validity. Assignment must consider competence and independence. Sending every report about a department to its manager may expose the whistleblower or assign the case to someone mentioned in it. Automation should support the team while allowing classification reviews and exceptions.

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

Create understandable categories and an option for users who cannot classify their report. Define restricted initial triage and an alternative route for conflicts. Test reports involving a manager, the channel officer and several subject matters. Record category changes and reassignment reasons without reproducing sensitive information in unnecessary notifications. 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 about the procurement director is automatically assigned to that director. Configuration follows department rather than risk. An alternative handler must take over without further disclosure. 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 fast automation remove the need for a conflict check? 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. Assignment needs exceptions, an alternative and verification. Record changes to access and reasons.

One mistake to avoid is: using automatic rules that disclose the case before checking the recipient's independence.

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.