A record should tell you who issued it, what it means and how to question it.

Read the record before reading the design

The visual identity of the Programme does not determine a record’s authority. The original record should identify:

• the legal name of its issuer;
• the issuer’s authority for that record type;
• the subject or holder, using only information suitable for the context;
• the record type, purpose and scope;
• the statement or event recorded;
• the issue date and any review, expiry or effective date;
• the current status;
• the version or unique identifier;
• the limitations on meaning and use;
• the issuer’s correction and status-contact route.

If the issuer or its authority cannot be established, the interface must not fill the gap with the Programme’s name.

Three separate questions

What did the issuer state?

This is the content of the original record. The issuer remains responsible for issuing, correcting, superseding, restricting or withdrawing it within its authority.

What was checked?

Verify may report a technical or documentary check, such as whether the retrieved record matches an issuer-controlled source, whether its integrity proof can be validated or whether the issuer reports a particular status. An independent assurance organisation may publish a separate statement about one authorised check. That statement must identify its own scope, method, source, date, status, limitation and correction route.

Will another institution accept or rely on it?

The institution considering the record makes its own decision under its rules and authority. A valid integrity proof or a separate assurance statement does not compel acceptance and does not establish every underlying claim as true.¹

Your choices and applicable rights

The live service, if authorised, should explain how a person can access information made available to them, correct inaccurate information, question a decision, request an appropriate review and exercise any applicable data rights. The exact right, responsible recipient, identity check, time frame, exception and escalation route depend on the operator, activity and applicable law. This page cannot create or limit a legal right by summary.

Where a person changes or withdraws an information choice, the service should explain what can stop, what must remain for an authorised reason, which recipients may need to be informed and whether an existing institutional decision or record is affected. It should never promise deletion or reversal where the responsible body has not established that outcome.

Choose the right route

Correction

Use correction when information in an original record or assurance statement may be inaccurate, incomplete, linked to the wrong person or out of date. The request must go to the organisation responsible for that object.

Review of a decision

Use a review route when an authorised process allows a person to ask the decision-maker, or a separate reviewer, to reconsider a decision or the procedure used. The page must state the scope and possible outcomes without promising that the decision will change.

Concern about conduct or safety

Use the safeguarding or concern route when the issue is about conduct, safety, exploitation, coercion or another protected concern within the published scope. The route must state who receives the report, how confidentiality is handled, what cannot be kept confidential and when another responsible authority may need to be involved.

Suspected misuse

Use the misuse route when a record, identifier, assurance statement, name or mark appears to have been copied, altered, falsely presented or used outside its stated scope. Reporting suspected misuse is not itself proof that misuse occurred.

A fair route must be understandable

Where a complaint or review mechanism is described as operational, it should be legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable, transparent, compatible with applicable rights and supported by learning. Those criteria are useful design references; they do not prove that a particular internal route is an independent legal remedy.⁵

The page should state the issue types it accepts, the responsible body, the stages, information needed, possible status messages, how conflicts are handled, when the person will hear again and what further route may exist. It should not describe a general inbox as an appeal body.

Urgent situations

Public boundary text: This website is not an emergency-response service. If there is an immediate risk of harm, use an appropriate local emergency or protection service. A Programme safeguarding route, where active, addresses only the scope and response arrangements stated on the relevant pathway.

The page must not guess a universal emergency contact. Any location-specific contact requires competent review, current details and a defined responsibility for maintenance.

Empty and disabled states

No live records service

Programme services are introduced in defined phases. Before any public action becomes available, its responsible entity, authority, information safeguards, security controls and support route are confirmed and presented alongside it.

Responsible organisation cannot be established

Programme services are introduced in defined phases. Before any public action becomes available, its responsible entity, authority, information safeguards, security controls and support route are confirmed and presented alongside it.

Review route unavailable

Programme services are introduced in defined phases. Before any public action becomes available, its responsible entity, authority, information safeguards, security controls and support route are confirmed and presented alongside it.

Closing actions

Read how Verify works View the correction guide