top of page

Compliance and Fidelity

Role

Tier

What it shows

  • Facilitator logs

  • Completion integrity flags

  • Incident reports

Elements

  • Dropdown: #ddCohortCompliancePick

  • Repeater: #repFacLogs

    • Text: #logTs

    • Text: #logFacilitator

    • Text: #logPortal

    • Text: #logType

    • Text: #logSeverity

    • Text: #logSummary

    • Button: #btnOpenLog

  • Repeater: #repIntegrityFlags

    • Text: #flagTitle

    • Text: #flagDetail

    • Text: #flagRisk

    • Button: #btnResolveFlag

  • Button: #btnNewIncident

  • Box/Form: #boxIncidentForm (collapsed)

    • Dropdown: #ddIncidentSeverity

    • Input: #inIncidentTitle

    • TextBox: #txtIncidentDetail

    • Button: #btnSubmitIncident

Powell-Rad Path™ Readiness Index (PRP-RI)

 

What it is:

A structured readiness snapshot that checks whether a cohort/institution has the minimum conditions required for truth to be safe (psychologically, socially, and procedurally).

​

What it measures

(fact-based, observable conditions):

​

  • Policy readiness: documented reporting pathways, confidentiality rules, retaliation protections, and escalation steps exist in writing.

  • Facilitator readiness: facilitators completed required onboarding, fidelity checks, and incident protocols.

  • Environment readiness: a “truth-safe” code is visible in cohort spaces (e.g., rules against doxxing, mocking, coercion).

  • Operational readiness: support desk and response windows are defined; severity triage exists.

  • Data readiness: consent and redaction rules are active; logs capture what matters (events, incidents, follow-ups).

 

Why it matters:

If these conditions are missing,

truth disclosure becomes unsafe and the system reproduces the same harm patterns it claims to heal.​

Integrity Risk Index (IRI)

What it is:

An integrity monitor that flags when a cohort is at risk of producing “compliance theater” (appearing healed without true repair).

​

Integrity risks

(verifiable signals):

​

  • False completion risk: completion recorded without participation evidence (attendance, reflection submissions, check-ins).

  • Retaliation risk: reports of backlash after truth disclosure (social exclusion, punishment, threats, intimidation).

  • Suppression patterns: “don’t talk about that,” “not here,” “not now,” or “keep the peace” enforcement.

  • Facilitator drift: facilitation deviates from protocol (shaming, coercive questioning, invalidation).

  • Narrative capture: group protects image over impact (“we’re fine,” “it’s not that serious”) despite harm signals.

 

What integrity means here:

Not perfection—repair capacity: the system can see harm, name it, and correct it.​

Incident Reporting

(Truth-Safety Critical Events)

 

Definition (factual):

An incident is any event that increases risk of harm during truth work

—psychological, social, reputational, or physical.

​

Incident categories

​

  • Retaliation / intimidation (post-disclosure punishment, threats, coercion)

  • Harassment / bullying (mocking truth tellers, targeted hostility, coercive group pressure)

  • Confidentiality breach (sharing someone’s disclosure or identifiable details)

  • Coercive facilitation (pressure to disclose; shame-based confrontation)

  • Escalation risk (self-harm language, violence threats, stalking)

  • Institutional obstruction (reports blocked, evidence destroyed, “handle it internally” used to silence)

  • Data integrity breach (tampering with logs, falsifying completion, unauthorized access)

 

Incident minimum data

(audit-friendly)

  • Timestamp (UTC)

  • Severity level (S1–S4)

  • Category

  • Cohort + portal/phase

  • What happened (facts only)

  • Who was impacted (anonymized role-based)

  • Immediate safety action taken

  • Escalation path used (support/admin/emergency)

  • Resolution notes + follow-up date​

SLA Breaches

(Support Desk Trust Infrastructure)

​

Definition (factual):

An SLA breach occurs when support response time exceeds published time windows for the assigned severity. SLA is a trust mechanism—when response fails, truth becomes unsafe.

​

Severity levels

(publish these)

​

  • S1 — Critical safety risk: threats, self-harm language, violence, stalking, doxxing
    Target: acknowledge quickly + escalate immediately per protocol

  • S2 — High risk: retaliation, coercion, confidentiality breach
    Target: same-day triage + safety plan steps

  • S3 — Moderate: repeated conflict, facilitator drift, unresolved harm reports
    Target: next-business-day handling

  • S4 — Low: access issues, documentation requests, general help
    Target: standard support window​

What you can state truthfully now

​

  • You operate an SLA model tied to severity triage.

  • SLA breach logs are stored as events/incidents with timestamps and resolution notes.

  • SLA compliance is measurable because the system logs createdAt, firstResponseAt, resolvedAt (or equivalents).

 

“Truth-Safe by Design” Operating Claims (fact-safe)

 

  • Confidentiality is operational, not symbolic: disclosures are protected through redaction rules and role-based visibility.

  • Safety precedes analysis: if a report indicates danger, the system triggers escalation protocols before interpretation.

  • No forced disclosure: participants can engage through structured reflection without revealing identifying details.

  • Auditability is built-in: completion, incidents, and escalations are tracked in logs so integrity can be verified.

  • Repair is the metric: success isn’t “quiet”; success is demonstrated repair actions and reduced suppression signals over time.

bottom of page