Chapter 7 of 17 · Define and collect evidence
Turn Reporting Requirements into Evidence: A Practical Mapping Guide
For each important report request, record the question or claim, its approved measure, the source that could support it and any gap. Then assign an owner and a collection moment. This turns a reporting deadline into a practical evidence plan.
Use the plan you already started in Foundation. Add columns only where they help someone make or check a decision.
Map one report sentence backward.
Suppose the fictional training team must report whether learners use the skill after the course and what support should change. It needs follow-up answers linked to the relevant completion records, the meaning of skill use and comments that explain the learner’s experience.
Report question: Are completers using the skill after 30 days?
Measure: approved skill-use rate, with response coverage.
Existing source: completion records.
New evidence: dated follow-up and optional comments.
Gap: people not reached and unclear responses.
Owner: coordinator, with a scheduled review before the next cohort.
Keep documents and comments alongside counts.
A source can be a record, interview, note or document. Keep its date, relevant person or organization, reporting period and access boundary. A file upload is not confirmation that the contents support the report.
In a separate partner example, a Q3 submission includes a Q2 financial report. The missing item is a current source, not a formatting error. Keep both periods visible and route the mismatch to the owner instead of relabelling the attachment.
Test the request-to-source connection.
- Keep the original request and its source.
- Link the approved measure or question that answers it.
- Identify the source, relevant period and record identity.
- Mark evidence available, incomplete, conflicting or missing.
- Assign the clarification or collection action and owner.
If a standard is required, compare its actual definition and version with yours. A familiar label or framework icon does not establish a valid match. Use the alignment exercise rather than adding every possible field to the form.
Try an incomplete submission before rollout.
Ask a colleague to trace one request to its source. Then remove a needed response or introduce a conflicting period. Does the gap remain visible, or does it become zero, failure or an apparently complete report? Repair that behavior before collecting at scale.
AI can extract candidate requirements from long documents and cite passages. A person verifies the requirement, mapping and supported claim. If the source cannot be read, it belongs in the missing-evidence list.
Continue with the same plan
You now know what evidence is needed. Place collection at the right moment, with a person responsible for reviewing what arrives.
Build a requirement-to-evidence matching table
This separate fictional exercise uses its own dataset; do not combine its counts with the earlier training example.
Give each requirement a stable identifier. Keep the exact request and its page, clause or email date beside the approved interpretation. The table below uses a fictional training example; it does not add results or disability breakdowns that the available records cannot support.
| Requirement | Collect or request | Check on arrival | Ready for reporting when |
|---|---|---|---|
| Employment status 90 days after exit | Contact ID, exit date, reference date, status and source; ask about the specified date rather than today | Correct follow-up window; duplicate contact; unknown versus not employed; conflicting confirmations | Owner resolves conflicts and the report shows known-status coverage alongside the result |
| Reasons participation was difficult | A neutral optional question or permissioned interview; keep the respondent’s words and date | Link to the right record; flag missing context; review proposed themes | Each theme can be traced to a source and the report explains how participants were selected |
| Quarterly partner expenditure | Partner ID, reporting period, currency, agreed expenditure categories and supporting financial document | Period and currency match; totals reconcile; required file is present; flag discrepancies for the finance reviewer | The reviewer accepts the reconciliation or records an unresolved difference. A file upload alone is not an audit |
| Actions after a social audit | Audit document, finding reference, action owner, due date and follow-up evidence | Link each action to its finding; identify overdue or unsupported closure claims | Evidence supports the stated action status and authorized staff review the conclusion |
For the training exercise, 36 of 60 people with known status were employed, from 80 starters. Report 60% among known responses with 75% status coverage; 45% of all starters were confirmed employed. These records do not establish uninterrupted employment or permit an invented disability breakdown. Write those gaps into the plan before designing another question.
Test the handoff before sending a form
- Trace one request. Can a colleague find its original clause and the agreed interpretation?
- Run one complete submission. Can the data and supporting file produce the intended report row without retyping?
- Run one incomplete submission. Does a missing response stay unknown instead of becoming zero or failure?
- Run one conflicting submission. Does the discrepancy reach an owner with both sources intact?
- Check access. Can the intended reviewer see the necessary evidence without exposing unrelated personal information?
If a requirement fails these tests, change the collection design or clarify the requirement. Do not conceal the gap in a polished report.
Add this to your plan
Record what you decided in this chapter in the same working evidence plan you started in Foundations, so definitions, sources and checks stay in one place.