Defining the scope, team and investigation plan

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will work through a concrete decision: prepare a clearly bounded and independent investigation mandate. 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. Internal fact-finding requires scope, authority and fair assessment. It does not replace police or court powers. The aim is a reasoned finding within lawful access boundaries and proportionate action.

The mandate defines what needs clarification, who authorises the work, who investigates and who later decides. It must set limits, resources and reporting arrangements. Vague scope encourages excessive collection and unhelpful findings. The team needs competence and freedom from conflicts. Assess early whether reporting to or involving authorities is mandatory.

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

Turn the account into investigation questions. Identify sources, actions, dependencies and risks. Set review points and access rules. Separate investigation from any disciplinary decision and respect its specific procedure. The objective is to establish whether particular facts occurred and under what conditions, rather than to prove a person's guilt. 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 vague mandate becomes three questions: was a fact changed, who had authority and what was the effect? This limits collection to relevant sources. 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 wider scope always mean a better investigation? 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. Scope must answer concrete questions proportionately. Unrelated collection can reduce quality and increase risk.

One mistake to avoid is: starting an investigation without boundaries, an owner or specific questions.

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.