When the Finding is Ugly.
A binding operating rule from Cogniosynthesis Portal Ltd for what happens when a Preservative AI review surfaces a material concern that a client does not want surfaced.
Why this document exists
Risk-averse organisations do not fear that a review will find nothing. They fear three things:
- That the reviewer will find something and weaponise it.
- That the reviewer will find something and bury it for the right price.
- That the reviewer will find something and then lose control of who hears about it.
This protocol is the answer to all three fears, made before the engagement begins rather than after the finding lands. It is not a marketing statement. It is a binding operating rule of the firm. The firm's reputation depends on the buyer being able to read this document, recognise themselves in it, and trust that the firm will hold the line.
The protocol governs four moments: the moment a finding is provisionally identified; the moment the client is informed; the moment the client disagrees; and the moment the client asks for the finding to be removed, softened, or suppressed.
What the firm will do
1. We will deliver the finding.
If the methodology surfaces a material concern supported by evidence in the corpus, the finding will be reported to the named client sponsor within the agreed escalation timeline. We will not sit on a finding to preserve the relationship. We will not delay a finding to a more convenient moment in the client's annual cycle. We will not allow a finding to be re-routed to a less senior recipient to soften its impact.
2. We will distinguish evidence from inference, and label each finding accordingly.
Every finding carries a label: Observed (directly supported by material in the corpus); Evidence unavailable publicly (not contradicted, but not in the corpus either); Inference requiring internal validation (interpretation, clearly marked, requiring client response); or Not assessed (out of scope for the present engagement).
3. We will give the client a factual-accuracy review.
Before any finding is finalised, the named client sponsor is given a defined period (typically 5–10 working days) to correct factual errors, identify missing context, provide internal documents that resolve an "evidence unavailable" label, and append a written management response. The factual-accuracy review is a right, not a favour. It is set out in the engagement letter.
4. We will preserve supported findings even where management disagrees.
This is the most important sentence in the protocol. It is the line the firm's credibility rests on. It is the line that makes the firm's work usable to a board, because it is the line that means a Ghost Ledger is not for sale.
5. We will deliver remediation alongside diagnosis.
No finding is delivered without a remediation option: re-test, retrain, redesign, re-document, re-attribute, re-consult, re-state, or accept. The option is the client's. The identification of the gap is ours.
6. We will not certify legal, financial, regulatory, or audit compliance.
The work may support governance, assurance, due diligence, regulatory engagement, or board representation. It is not legal advice. It is not a compliance certificate. It is not a substitute for internal or external audit. The boundary is stated on every report and on every engagement letter.
7. We will not publish, leak, monetise, or reference the client outside the agreed terms.
No case study. No quotation. No "anonymised illustration". No conference talk. No LinkedIn post. The engagement exists in a closed evidence room with a controlled disclosure protocol. The protocol is in the contract. The contract is enforceable.
8. We will retain a versioned audit log, in escrow, for the agreed retention period.
The log records the corpus, the framework and model version, every finding with its evidence chain, every factual-accuracy exchange, every management response, every reviewer override, and every disposal decision. It is held under joint escrow with a named third party. It can be produced on the joint instruction of the firm and the client. It cannot be unilaterally altered by either party.
What the firm will not do
We will not soften a finding to keep the engagement.
If the client asks for a finding to be softened because it is inconvenient, the engagement is at risk. We will say so in writing. We will not say so as a threat. We will say so as a fact, because the engagement's value to the next client depends on the next client being able to read the previous report and trust it.
We will not allow the engagement to expand without written approval.
A defined scope is a defined scope. The client cannot ask, mid-engagement, for a "broader look" that conveniently covers areas the original scope excluded. Any expansion requires a written change order, a revised fee, and a revised timeline.
We will not allow findings to be re-attributed to anonymous reviewers.
Every finding is reviewed by a named human. The named human's credentials are on the report. The named human's disposition is in the audit log. The work is not "our AI said so". The work is "we, the named people, after human review of the evidence chain, say so".
We will not pretend to controls we do not have.
If the firm does not have ISO 27001, the firm does not claim ISO 27001. Inflated assurance language is a betrayal of the firm's central premise: that the official record can be complete as a form and still be incomplete as an account. The firm cannot be the second case.
We will not work without a named client sponsor.
Without a named sponsor, the engagement does not begin. The sponsor is the only person to whom the firm delivers material findings. The sponsor may delegate receipt, but not responsibility.
We will not train a model on client material.
Client material is processed solely for the contracted review. It is not used to train, fine-tune, evaluate, or improve any model, including the firm's own. The processing is described in the data flow diagram. The diagram is appended to the engagement letter. The diagram is enforceable.
We will not promise legal privilege.
Privilege is fact-specific, jurisdiction-specific, and not created by the engagement letter. The client may instruct the work through their own legal advisers if they wish. The firm will not represent to the client that the engagement is or will be privileged. The client's counsel makes that determination.
What happens at each moment
The reviewer assigns a label. The finding is logged. The finding is held pending the factual-accuracy review.
Maximum hold time before disclosure to the named client sponsor: as set out in the engagement letter (typically 5 working days for the full engagement; immediate for material findings escalated as urgent).
The finding is delivered in writing, with the evidence chain and the provisional label, to the named client sponsor and the named designees only.
Maximum time from identification to disclosure to sponsor: as set out in the engagement letter.
The disagreement is logged. Additional evidence is re-tested. The named reviewer makes a final disposition: Confirmed, Modified, Reclassified, or Retracted. The disposition, with reasons, is logged.
The request is logged. The firm responds in writing, citing this protocol by name and section. The firm offers four options.
| Option | What it means | When it applies |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Re-test | The client provides additional evidence. The firm re-tests the finding against it. | The client believes the corpus under-represents the position. |
| 2. Reclassify | The finding is reclassified, with the original classification preserved in the audit log, if the evidence supports a different label. | The label is wrong, not the substance. |
| 3. Append | The client's written management response is appended to the finding in full. The finding remains. | The client disagrees with the framing or the implication, but accepts the substance. |
| 4. Terminate | The engagement is terminated. The firm does not deliver a final report. The audit log records the termination, the scope of work performed, the findings identified, and their disposition. The firm does not produce a partial report, a summary report, or a "framework" report in place of the agreed deliverable. | The client requires the firm's name on a report that does not contain the findings the firm identified. The firm declines. The engagement ends. |
There is no fifth option. The firm will not deliver a sanitised report in place of a full one. The firm will not sign a report that does not contain the findings the firm identified. The firm will not accept future work from a client who requires any of the above. The line is the line.
The standing cost of breaking this protocol
The protocol is binding on the firm. It is not a preference. It is the operating rule that the firm's reputation rests on.
If the firm breaks the protocol: the breach is disclosed to the client in writing; the engagement fee is returned in full; the audit log entry recording the breach is preserved; the firm does not accept future work from that client or from any client introduced by that client for a period of five years.
If the client asks the firm to break the protocol: the request is logged; the firm declines, citing this protocol by name and section; the engagement is terminated under option 4 above; the firm does not accept future work from that client.
The asymmetry is deliberate. The firm's cost of holding the line is one engagement fee. The firm's cost of not holding the line is the entire franchise.
How the protocol is communicated
This document is published on the firm's website. It is referenced in every engagement letter. It is reviewed and re-published annually. The review is logged in the audit log. The published version is the version that governs.
If the firm wishes to amend the protocol, the amendment is published, dated, and effective only for engagements signed after the publication date. Existing engagements are governed by the protocol as it stood at signature.
If a client wishes the protocol to be modified for their engagement, the modification is recorded as a written side-letter. The side-letter is logged. The published protocol is not modified to accommodate the side-letter.
What the protocol is for
This protocol exists so that:
- A General Counsel can read it, recognise their own concerns, and forward it to the Chief Risk Officer with the sentence: "This is how the firm says it will behave when the finding is something we would rather not have found."
- An Audit Committee Chair can read it and ask the question: "What would we do if a reviewer gave us a finding we could not unsee, and this protocol is the document that says we cannot buy its disappearance?"
- A Chief Executive can read it and recognise that the protocol is more rigorous than most of their internal escalation routes. That recognition, more than any sales deck, is the reason the engagement begins.
Open an enquiry
Questions about the protocol, the methodology or a prospective engagement. Every enquiry is read by a named reviewer, who replies from reports@cogniosynthesisportal.uk. Nothing written here is published.