Classification and referral exercises

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will consolidate a skill: justify triage decisions where information is incomplete. 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. Triage selects the appropriate next action without prejudging responsibility. Competence, urgency, evidential quality and conflicts are separate dimensions. Information protection also applies during initial assessment.

Good triage depends on consistent criteria, not identical answers for every case. A sound record sets out the subject, gaps, risks and reasons for referral. A decision may be provisional. Revising a classification when new facts emerge demonstrates diligence, provided the change is explained.

Apply the following rule: Article 13 permits direct external reporting where the internal route is absent, would be ineffective, or the person believes there is a risk of retaliation. Choose the authority by the subject of the breach. KPK is not the sole authority for every matter; it also provides support and statutory protection functions. Public disclosure has separate article 18 conditions. Advice, statistical reporting and reporting a breach are different services.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Assess three communications: a scheduling dispute, possible bid manipulation and an anonymous message without facts. For each, choose clarification, verification, referral or another reasoned decision under national law. Falling outside whistleblower protection does not remove possible obligations under other rules. Record the reason and limits of available information. 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 initial complaint concerns working hours. The person later explains that shifts changed after reporting a breach. Possible retaliation becomes relevant. 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: Must the initial category remain unchanged? 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. Update assessment with the new facts and preserve history. A new label does not itself establish causation.

One mistake to avoid is: treating the first assigned category as irreversible.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. An advice page is listed as the sole recipient of every report. What is missing?

A competence check. Select the authority by the breach and article 13 external-route conditions. KPK has support and other statutory duties but is not the only competent authority. Distinguish advice, reporting and public disclosure.