MAINSYSTEMS 
use an assessment grid to examine situations involving protection
1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards
In this video we will consolidate a skill: use an assessment grid to examine situations involving protection. 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. ZZPri has its own protection and handling conditions. An organisation may receive a wider range of concerns, but not every concern automatically has the same legal status. Distinguish reporting, fact assessment and participants’ rights.
A consistent assessment separates five questions: who is reporting, how they obtained the information, which breach they describe, what grounds they had and which route they used. Add the risks of retaliation and the rights of the people involved. The grid guides the assessment but does not replace legal analysis of a specific case. Where information is missing, the appropriate response may be to request clarification securely.
Apply the following rule: Entities with an internal-route duty and external authorities report previous-year statistics to KPK by 1 March; this does not mean sending every identified case. The ZIntPK integrity plan has a different group of obliged entities. Current KPK guidelines apply from 1 January 2025, with reporting on implementation by 5 June. Portugal’s RGPC is not Slovenian law. Recommended organisational measures are not automatically universal legal duties.
2. Practical Implementation & Procedure
Record known facts and uncertainty for each case. Do not use a single automatic protected label. Consider anonymity, necessary support and others’ rights. Update preliminary findings when new facts emerge. 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 contractor reports documents seen at work, another person knowingly invents an accusation, and a trainee provides plausible facts without knowing every detail. The cases need different conclusions. 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: Which contains knowing falsehood if fabrication is established? 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.
The invented accusation. Assess scope and conditions in the others without demanding absolute certainty. Motive or an unsubstantiated result does not replace the statutory test.
One mistake to avoid is: deciding on the basis of seniority, job title or personal sympathy.
Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The team describes every prevention measure as mandatory in every organisation. How should the explanation change?
Separate the specific duty and its obliged entities from recommended practice. Integrity plans, conflicts and public procurement have their own scope. Portugal’s RGPC does not transfer automatically. For a recommended control, identify risk, owner and evidence of effectiveness.