Standards of work
Trust should rest on visible working standards.
These standards describe how evidence is handled, calculations are reviewed, uncertainty is communicated and engagements are accepted. They apply regardless of subject, format or duration.
Independence
The conclusion is not agreed in advance.
An engagement may begin with a preferred option, a working hypothesis or a decision already under pressure. None of these is treated as a required conclusion.
The scope should identify the decision, relevant criteria and material constraints before analysis begins. Evidence that weakens the initial position remains part of the record. A recommendation distinguishes what follows from the evidence from what depends on judgement, policy or risk appetite.
- Decision before advocacyThe question and criteria are stated before evidence is selected to support an option.
- Competing explanationsWhere several mechanisms are plausible, the strongest alternatives are tested rather than mentioned only as caveats.
- Traceable judgementRecommendations identify the assumptions and value choices that cannot be resolved by data alone.
Confidentiality
Information is used only for the agreed work.
Non-public information is treated as engagement material, not as reusable marketing content. Access is limited to what is needed for the defined question, and requests for data should remain proportionate to the analysis.
Client names, logos, extracts, results or recognisable circumstances are not published without explicit permission.
- Purpose limitationInformation is requested and used for a stated analytical or delivery purpose.
- Minimum necessary accessAggregated, masked or sampled information is preferred where it can answer the question adequately.
- No implied endorsementAn engagement does not create permission to use a client identity, result or testimonial publicly.
Source handling
Material claims retain their provenance.
A source is evaluated for relevance, authority, recency, population, methodology and proximity to the underlying event. A precise number from an unsuitable source is not treated as strong evidence.
Internal records, stakeholder statements and external research serve different purposes. They should not be blended without indicating which claim depends on which source and where definitions are incompatible.
| Source type | Primary use | Required treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Internal system records | Observed transactions, events and operating states. | Confirm grain, time semantics, transformations, missingness and known process changes. |
| Stakeholder interviews | Context, decision logic, constraints and undocumented practice. | Separate direct observation from interpretation; test material claims against records where possible. |
| External primary sources | Market, regulatory, company or methodological evidence. | Prefer original publications and retain date, scope and definition. |
| Secondary analysis | Synthesis, comparison and discovery of primary evidence. | Check cited sources and avoid inheriting unsupported estimates. |
| Modelled or estimated values | Scenarios where direct observation is unavailable. | Expose assumptions, range, sensitivity and the decision risk created by error. |
Calculation validation
A material calculation should be reproducible.
Review is proportionate to consequence. A directional exploration and a number used for a public statement or major allocation do not require the same control, but both should identify their inputs and logic.
- Definition check
- Confirm the numerator, denominator, population, grain, timeframe, exclusions and treatment of late or corrected records.
- Reconciliation
- Compare source totals, intermediate transformations and final outputs; explain rather than conceal legitimate differences.
- Independent recomputation
- Reproduce material results from stated inputs or an alternative calculation path where consequence warrants it.
- Boundary testing
- Test empty, duplicate, missing, negative, late and extreme values that can expose assumptions hidden by normal cases.
- Sensitivity
- Show how the conclusion changes when material assumptions, definitions or uncertain inputs vary.
- Review record
- Retain enough logic, source references and version information to explain the result after delivery.
Uncertainty
Unknown, estimated and unsupported are not interchangeable.
Uncertainty is described in the form most useful to the decision. A probability range may be appropriate for a forecast; confidence categories may be more honest where data is sparse or definitions are unstable.
| Status | Meaning | Expected communication |
|---|---|---|
| Observed | Directly represented in a defined and reviewed source. | State the population, period and material quality limitations. |
| Derived | Calculated from observed inputs using explicit logic. | Provide the formula, transformations and reconciliation. |
| Estimated | Inferred where direct observation is incomplete. | Show assumptions, range and sensitivity to material inputs. |
| Directional | Evidence supports movement or relative difference, not precise magnitude. | Avoid false numerical precision and explain the comparison basis. |
| Unknown | Available evidence cannot support a responsible conclusion. | State the gap and whether further evidence could change the decision. |
A recommendation should record what would invalidate it, which signal will be monitored and when the decision should be reviewed.
Conflicts of interest
Material incentives and competing duties must be surfaced.
A conflict can arise from a financial interest, a concurrent engagement, privileged information, a close relationship or an incentive tied to a preferred conclusion. The relevant question is whether the circumstance could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, independent judgement.
A material conflict is disclosed before accepting or continuing the affected work. Depending on severity, the response may be informed consent, a narrower scope, separation of information, exclusion from part of the work or refusal of the engagement.
- Early disclosureKnown material conflicts are raised before confidential information is requested.
- No contingent conclusionThe engagement is not conditioned on reaching a predetermined analytical result.
- Withdrawal when necessaryAn engagement is ended if independence cannot be protected by a credible and proportionate measure.
Information security
Access and retention should match the sensitivity of the work.
Security requirements are agreed according to data sensitivity, contractual restrictions, jurisdiction and the systems involved. Highly sensitive personal data, credentials and production secrets should not be transferred merely because they are available.
- Controlled transferApproved channels and formats are agreed before non-public data is shared.
- Access limitationAccess is restricted to the material and duration required for the engagement.
- Environment separationClient material is kept separate from public examples and unrelated work.
- Retention decisionReturn, deletion or continued retention is addressed when work concludes, subject to legal obligations.
- Incident responseA suspected loss, unauthorised access or material disclosure is assessed and communicated without avoidable delay.
Engagement acceptance
Some work should be narrowed, delayed or refused.
An enquiry does not create an obligation to accept the work. Refusal protects the client as much as the integrity of the analysis when the necessary conditions are absent.
- Predetermined conclusionThe requested output is intended to justify a decision regardless of contrary evidence.
- Insufficient competence or capacityThe subject, timetable or assurance level cannot be handled to an appropriate standard.
- Unmanageable conflictA material conflict cannot be removed, disclosed adequately or protected by a credible safeguard.
- Unlawful or deceptive purposeThe work would facilitate unlawful access, discrimination, misrepresentation or concealment of material facts.
- No defensible evidence pathThe requested certainty cannot be supported and the limitation is unacceptable to the commissioning party.
- Unsafe information handlingNecessary data cannot be obtained, transferred or retained under proportionate security conditions.