Assessing contradictory information

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video focuses on how to compare hypotheses using the quality of available evidence. 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. 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.

Contradictions may arise from error, different perspectives, incomplete memory or falsehood. Their importance varies. Assess origin, timing, consistency and opportunities for verification. Several people repeating one source do not constitute several independent sources. Also seek information capable of contradicting the initial hypothesis.

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

Build a matrix of allegations, supporting material, contrary material and gaps. Compare records and accounts without assigning credibility merely by seniority. Identify which action could resolve a material contradiction. If doubt remains, explain the limitation instead of hiding it in a categorical finding. Legal classification and the decision standard depend on the applicable procedure. 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 log shows ten in the morning while a witness recalls evening. The team first checks time zones and the difference between creation and synchronisation. 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 the discrepancy immediately prove a false statement? 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. Check technical and factual explanations. If unresolved, state the limitation clearly.

One mistake to avoid is: seeking only information that confirms the initial hypothesis.

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.