Plan Rights-Compliant Case Contact

Build a prosecutor-reviewable protocol for rights-compliant case contact.

Introduction

30 Second Summary

A phone number in a case file can look like a simple next step. Yet careless outreach can compromise a fair process.

In this project, you will build a case-local contact control package for suspected fraudulent administrative documents. Official references from Légifrance will support each internal review.

What You'll Build

Open the finished protocol during review to trace a proposed contact from written approval to a final release decision before anyone is approached.

By the end of this project, you'll have:

Check the written authority behind any proposed contact. You can see exactly where its scope ends.
Trace each person from a secure evidence reference to a provisional role without turning unverified information into an accusation.
Use role-specific contact packets that preserve the presumption of innocence. Each packet shows who reviews its final release status.
Secret Mission: add a bounded decision matrix for non-response, refusal, counsel involvement, mistaken identity, and new exculpatory information.

Are there any prerequisites?

You need written authorization that identifies who may be contacted. You also need access to the official case system, secure evidence storage, the exact procedural reference, the approved scope, and an available prosecutor liaison.

Before We Start

Your authorized case environment includes written contact approval, the exact procedural reference and scope, official case access, secure evidence storage, and an available prosecutor liaison. This checkpoint commits every proposed contact to approved purposes, channels, rights safeguards, disclosure limits, evidence provenance, and prosecutor review before anyone is approached.

Set Up Authority and Evidence Controls

A contact plan becomes unsafe when its written authority, evidence locations, or disclosure limits live in separate places. A reviewer needs one controlled record that shows what contact is allowed before anyone is approached.

You will transcribe the approved scope into a case-local authority header. The finished workspace also preserves evidence provenance through secure references while keeping current legal sources close to the plan.

In this step, get ready to:

Create a case-local authority header from the written approval.
Link each evidence source through its secure-storage reference.
Record the controlling legal sources as an internal review aid.

Fix the approved contact scope

The authority header defines the boundary of every later contact decision. Exact transcription keeps an assumption from quietly becoming an authorization.

What belongs in the authority header?

The procedure reference.
The issuing authority.
The authorization date.
The approved people or category.
The permitted contact purpose.
The permitted channels.
The authorization limits.
The escalation owner.
The expiry or review condition.

Return to the case record in the official case system.
Create a case-local authority header inside that record.
Transcribe each listed field exactly from the written approval.
Use a case-system reference when the approval points to an existing controlled record.
Enter not authorized for every unsupported field.
Compare the completed header with the written approval line by line.

You should see every field resolved through an exact transcription, a controlled case-system reference, or not authorized. The header now exposes gaps before they can shape a live contact.

Cannot confirm an authority field?

Keep the unresolved field marked not authorized.
Route the unresolved point to the prosecutor liaison named for the case.
Use synthetic labels when requesting general help. Help me structure an unresolved authority-field escalation without sharing case details.

Link evidence without duplicating it

An evidence-control record shows why a source matters without reproducing the source itself. Each entry points back to material that remains governed by secure evidence controls.

Create an evidence-control record beside the authority header in the official case system.
Add one entry for each source using its secure-storage source identifier.
Record the acquisition context for that source.
Record the source custodian.
Record the applicable integrity or seal reference.
State the precise fact that the source is offered to support.

Why use secure references?

A secure-storage identifier lets a reviewer locate the governed source without creating an uncontrolled copy. The acquisition context shows how that source entered the case.

The supported-fact field keeps the reasoning narrow. It prevents a source from being stretched into a broader allegation.

Review each entry for copied evidence content.
Remove any duplication that sits outside the authorized evidence regime.

You should see references and provenance details in each entry. The evidence itself remains in secure evidence storage.

Cannot resolve an evidence reference?

Confirm the source identifier against the secure evidence storage record.
Place the affected entry on hold when its provenance cannot be demonstrated.
Use synthetic details when requesting help. Help me diagnose a missing evidence-provenance field safely.

Link current legal sources

A case-local legal review aid keeps the controlling sources available during review. Légifrance provides the official pages linked below.

Create a legal review aid in the case-local protocol workspace.
Add the current Code of Criminal Procedure preliminary article.
Add the current Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.
Add the current Code of Criminal Procedure article 56.
Add the current Code of Criminal Procedure article 61-1.

What do these sources control?

The preliminary article anchors the presumption of innocence.
Article 11 protects the secret of the investigation.
Article 56 governs the inventory and sealing of seized items.
Article 61-1 lists information and rights for an audition libre where its threshold is met.
Article 77 applies the relevant hearing provisions during a preliminary investigation.
Article 78 sets boundaries for summonses and compelled appearance.

Add the current Code of Criminal Procedure article 77.
Add the current Code of Criminal Procedure article 78.
Add only the offense-reference links approved by the prosecutor.
Label the collection as an internal review aid.
State that the collection does not replace case-specific legal direction.

Keep legal direction case specific

These links help a reviewer check the governing text. The written authorization still controls the permitted scope for this case.

Procedural posture remains a case-file fact. An unresolved legal question stays on hold for the prosecutor liaison.

Before you compare the records, consider whether every authority field can be traced without relying on an unsupported assumption.

Compare the completed authority header with the written approval line by line.
Confirm that every authority field is an exact transcription.
Confirm that every referenced authority field points to a controlled case-system location.
Confirm that every unsupported authority field shows not authorized.
Inspect every evidence entry for its secure-storage identifier, acquisition context, custodian, applicable integrity or seal reference, and supported fact.
Inspect the legal review aid for all six Code of Criminal Procedure links.
Confirm that the legal review aid contains the prosecutor-approved offense references.
Confirm that the legal review aid is marked as internal guidance only.

You should see three controlled artifacts with no unsupported authority claim and no duplicated evidence. Any unresolved point should remain visibly marked for review.

✔️ My controlled records match

The authority header, evidence-control record, and legal review aid now match the approved scope. Each artifact remains inside the authorized environment.

ⓧ I'd like to double check the records

Case Authority Header. Created in the official case system. It contains exact-transcription or case-system-reference fields for the procedure reference, issuing authority, authorization date, approved people or category, permitted contact purpose, permitted channels, limits, escalation owner, and expiry or review condition. Every unsupported field is marked not authorized.

Evidence-Control Record. Created in the official case system. Each entry contains the secure-storage source identifier, acquisition context, custodian, applicable integrity or seal reference, and the fact that the source is offered to support. No evidence content is duplicated outside the authorized evidence regime.

Legal Review Aid. Created in the case-local protocol workspace. It links the current Légifrance pages for the Code of Criminal Procedure preliminary article and articles 11, 56, 61-1, 77, and 78. It also contains the prosecutor-approved offense references. It is marked as an internal review aid instead of case-specific legal direction.

Does a legal link need review?

Keep the affected legal question on hold until the current official source is confirmed.
Route any case-specific interpretation to the prosecutor liaison.
Use only the public article reference when requesting general help. Help me verify the structure of this legal review aid without discussing a case.

That control foundation is now in place. Next, you will use synthetic data to draft a neutral contact record that can be tested before any live approach.

Draft a Neutral Contact Record

Your authority header now fixes the permitted scope for contact. Your evidence-control record keeps every supporting fact tied to its secure source.

A contact record converts those controls into the words a recipient receives. Its wording signals procedural status.

The same words can carry different pressure when the evidential role changes. This step tests that risk with synthetic profiles before any live contact.

In this step, get ready to:

Create a first-pass contact record with synthetic data only.
Write a neutral opening within the approved contact boundaries.
Expose the draft’s defects through a two-profile read-through.

Create the first-pass record

A structured record keeps each contact decision reviewable. Synthetic data lets you test that structure without bringing live identities or evidence into the draft.

What belongs in the first pass?

The Person reference field identifies the synthetic profile.
The Contact purpose field states the authorized reason for contact.
The Authorized channel field records the permitted contact route.
The Neutral opening field holds the proposed opening language.
The Identity-verification method field records the approved verification approach.
The Permitted disclosure facts field limits what may be revealed.
The Requested next action field states what the recipient is being asked to do.
The Rights or assistance notice field records the notice included in the test draft.
The Result field records the contact outcome.
The Escalation owner field identifies who receives unresolved issues.

In the case-local protocol workspace from earlier, create a first-pass contact record through the approved case-local record function.
Add the complete field set shown above.
Confirm the structure by counting the labeled fields.

You should count ten labeled fields. Each field gives the later review a specific control point.

Populate each field with synthetic test data.
Save the first-pass record in the case-local protocol workspace.
Inspect the saved record for any live identity or evidence content.

Good. Your first-pass record now has a complete test structure without exposing live case data.

Found live details in the draft?

Stop editing the draft as soon as you find live identity or evidence content.
Use the approved correction procedure to remove the live content from the test record.
Still unsure about the boundary? Help me check my synthetic contact record for live case content.

Write the neutral opening

The opening establishes why the recipient is hearing from the official unit. Neutral language protects the presumption of innocence while keeping the contact inside the written approval.

What makes the opening neutral?

It identifies the official unit recorded for approved use.
It includes the exact procedure reference from the authority header.
It states that the contact is authorized.
It avoids declaring the person guilty.
It avoids declaring the document fraudulent.
It directs the recipient to an approved official callback route.
It excludes personal technical credentials.
It excludes statutory maximums.
It excludes promises about penalties.
It excludes promises about administrative outcomes.

Draft the neutral opening in its record field using the requirements above.
Compare the official unit in the opening with the authority header.
Compare the procedure reference in the opening with the authority header.

You should see an exact match for both authority-controlled details. The opening should also state that the contact is authorized.

Screen the opening against every exclusion in the checklist above.
Save the updated first-pass record.
Read the opening aloud as a recipient would hear it.

You should hear an official introduction with a procedure reference. You should also hear a safe callback route without an accusation or promised outcome.

Does the opening sound accusatory?

Check every statement about the person for language that treats suspicion as an established fact.
Check every statement about the document for language that declares a legal conclusion.
Need another review? Help me check my synthetic opening against the neutral-language checklist.

Test one record against two roles

The unchanged draft now faces two distinct evidential roles. Reading it through each profile reveals how procedural meaning changes with the recipient.

Create one synthetic suspected-supplier profile in the case-local test area.
Apply the unchanged first-pass record to the synthetic suspected-supplier profile.
Confirm that all ten record fields remain present in the populated copy.

You should have one complete suspected-supplier copy of the original record.

Create one synthetic possible-victim profile in the case-local test area.
Apply the unchanged first-pass record to the synthetic possible-victim profile.
Confirm that all ten record fields remain present in the populated copy.

You should now have two complete copies of the same draft. Only the synthetic profile has changed.

Before you compare them, do you expect the same wording to fit both profiles? Which part feels most likely to break first?

Run the two-profile read-through by reading every field in the synthetic copies side by side.

You should find mismatches in one or both copies. That shortfall is the intended result of this test.

Which defects should you flag?

Flag every sentence that assumes guilt.
Flag every sentence that reveals evidence.
Flag every sentence that states an unapproved consequence.
Flag every sentence that gives the wrong procedural status.
Flag every sentence that misstates the person’s role.
Flag every sentence that misstates the applicable rights.
Flag every sentence that applies inappropriate pressure.
Flag every sentence that requests the wrong action.
Flag every sentence that exceeds the disclosure need.

Preserve the unchanged first-pass record as the baseline.
Highlight every sentence that meets at least one defect category.
Count the highlighted sentences in each synthetic copy.

You should see highlighted wording in the two-profile comparison. The highlights make the one-size-fits-all shortfall visible to a reviewer.

Label each highlight with every applicable defect category.
Record the affected synthetic profile beside each label.

Before the final review, do you expect any highlighted sentence to remain without a clear defect label?

Run the final side-by-side review to confirm that every defective sentence is highlighted and labeled.

What should the final check show?

You should have one annotation set for the synthetic suspected supplier. You should also have one annotation set for the synthetic possible victim.

Every sentence that assumes guilt is highlighted.
Every sentence that reveals evidence is highlighted.
Every sentence that states an unapproved consequence is highlighted.
Every sentence that gives the wrong procedural status is highlighted.
Every sentence that misstates the role is highlighted.
Every sentence that misstates the rights is highlighted.
Every sentence that applies inappropriate pressure is highlighted.
Every sentence that requests the wrong action is highlighted.
Every sentence that exceeds the disclosure need is highlighted.

That is the key result. The draft has exposed its own limits before anyone uses it with live data.

Protect the authorized environment

Sharing a checkpoint from an authorized environment can feel risky. This checkpoint must show a fully redacted synthetic view that complies with local screenshot policy.

Remove every live case reference from the visible area.
Hide internal system names from the visible area.
Hide interface details that local policy treats as restricted.
Exclude all evidence content from the capture.
Exclude all secure-storage references from the capture.

Your single-record draft has done its job by exposing role-sensitive defects before live use. Next, you’ll turn those defects into evidence-linked role classifications.

Classify Contacts by Evidential Role

The single-record test from the previous step exposed the cost of treating different people alike. The same wording distorted procedural status when applied to a suspected supplier or a possible victim.

Contact purpose must follow evidence. Safeguards must follow procedural role.

In this step, you'll build a provisional classification matrix. Each synthetic person will have a source-linked rationale plus a controlled contact decision.

In this step, get ready to:

Define five provisional evidential outcomes.
Connect every synthetic person to evidence plus contrary information.
Map approved legal questions before tracing one complete decision path.

Define provisional role outcomes

A provisional classification keeps the presumption of innocence visible while analysis continues. Its purpose is to describe the current evidence position while leaving guilt undecided.

How provisional outcomes work

Each outcome controls the next review question. It never turns an allegation into an established fact.

Use suspected supplier or procurer when cited evidence raises an approved question about supplying or procuring the document.
Use suspected knowing user when cited evidence raises an approved question about knowing use.
Use possible victim or unwitting holder when the evidence supports possible deception or unknowing possession.
Use witness or source when the person may provide relevant information without a supported suspicion classification.
Use insufficient basis or identity conflict when the evidence cannot support another outcome or identity remains uncertain.

Switch back to the case-local protocol workspace in the official case system.
Create a structured record titled Provisional Classification Matrix.

The new record should appear beside the authority header plus the evidence-control record.

Set provisional as the visible matrix status.
Configure the outcome field with the five values shown above.

You should see a visible provisional status plus exactly five permitted role outcomes.

Save the provisional classification matrix in the case-local protocol workspace.

Connect every row to evidence

Reliable evidence provenance shows where each classification came from. Every row must separate the fact a source supports from the conclusion under review.

Create one matrix row for each synthetic person already used in the two-profile test.
Record the secure-storage source reference for each row.

Each source reference should resolve to an existing entry in the evidence-control record.

State the precise fact supported by the cited source.
Record the corroboration status of that fact.

You should now see the supported fact separately from its corroboration status. This separation exposes any inference that still needs support.

Record all known exculpatory or contradictory information.
Add an identity-confidence note.

Each row should now expose evidence that weakens the proposed classification. Identity uncertainty should remain visible beside that evidence.

Assign the permitted contact purpose.
Set the approved disclosure ceiling.

The contact purpose should fit the provisional role. The disclosure ceiling should stay within the written approval.

Choose go, hold, or escalate in the decision field.
Name the reviewer responsible for that decision.

Every row should now end with a controlled decision plus an accountable reviewer.

Record the prosecutor-confirmation status for the proposed legal qualification.
Set any unresolved qualification to hold or escalate according to the written authority.

A row with an unresolved qualification should display a visible stop or escalation path.

Can't support a classification?

Use insufficient basis or identity conflict when the cited source cannot support the proposed role.
Use hold when identity or legal qualification remains unresolved.
Still unsure about a row? Help me identify which matrix field lacks support.

Map legal questions and verify the decision path

The legal review aid links to current Légifrance sources. Those sources frame prosecutor-approved questions while the cited evidence supplies the factual basis.

Keep each legal question bounded

Use Penal Code article 441-1 only for an approved question about a fraudulent alteration capable of causing harm or use of that falsehood.
Use Penal Code article 441-2 only for an approved question about a false administrative document or its use.
Use Penal Code article 441-3 only for an approved question about fraudulent possession of a false administrative document.
Use Penal Code article 441-5 only for an approved question about fraudulently procuring an administrative document for another person.
Use Road Code article L221-2-1 only when the evidence supports the compound driving plus false-permit facts.

Return to the legal review aid from earlier.
Confirm that each proposed legal question appears within the prosecutor-approved scope.

You should find a documented approval basis for every question you plan to map.

Map the applicable prosecutor-approved legal question to each synthetic row.
Apply Road Code article L221-2-1 only to a row with supported compound driving plus false-permit facts.

Each mapped question should connect to a precise supported fact. A legal reference alone cannot complete the row.

Remove any mapping based only on an article heading.
Remove any conclusion based on a statutory maximum.

The remaining mappings should contain questions supported by evidence. They should also remain within prosecutor-approved scope.

Route every unresolved legal question to the named reviewer or prosecutor liaison.
Save the completed provisional classification matrix.

Matrix completion checkpoint

The outcome field should allow suspected supplier or procurer, suspected knowing user, possible victim or unwitting holder, witness or source, plus insufficient basis or identity conflict.

Every row should show a source reference, precise supported fact, corroboration status, known exculpatory or contradictory information, plus an identity-confidence note.

Every row should also show a contact purpose, approved disclosure ceiling, go or hold or escalate decision, reviewer, plus a prosecutor-confirmation field for legal qualification.

Legal-question mapping should stay within prosecutor-approved use of Penal Code articles 441-1, 441-2, 441-3, and 441-5. Road Code article L221-2-1 applies only where the compound facts have evidential support.

Use this trace order

Secure-storage source reference.
Precise supported fact.
Provisional role.
Permitted contact purpose.
Approved disclosure ceiling.
Go, hold, or escalate decision.
Named reviewer.

Before you run the trace, predict whether every stage will resolve to a cited source without an unsupported assumption.
Select any synthetic row from the completed matrix.
Trace the selected row aloud using the sequence shown above.

You should reach a source-backed contact decision plus a named reviewer without relying on an unsupported assumption. Any broken link should end in a visible hold or escalation.

That's the central control in place. Your synthetic contacts now have provisional roles grounded in cited evidence.

Next up, you'll turn those classifications into separate packets for suspected persons, possible victims or witnesses, plus administrative referrals.

Build Role-Specific Contact Packets

Your provisional classification matrix now connects each synthetic person to an evidential role. It also gives every proposed contact a permitted purpose.

The next goal is to turn those decisions into separate packets. Each packet must serve its lawful purpose while protecting the recipient from an incorrect status or accusation.

In this step, get ready to:

Create a rights-aware packet for a synthetic suspected person.
Create a non-accusatory packet for a synthetic possible victim or witness.
Create a limited administrative referral for the competent authority.

Create the suspected-person packet

The presumption of innocence must remain visible whenever a person is contacted as a suspect. The packet can state an authorized suspicion without presenting guilt as established.

Return to the provisional classification matrix from the previous step.
Select one synthetic row classified as a suspected supplier or procurer.

You should see the row's cited evidence facts. You should also see its approved contact purpose.

Create a suspected-person contact packet in the official case system.
Link the packet to the selected matrix row.

The new packet should display its provisional classification source. It should also display its connection to the authority header.

Enter the exact suspected-offense description approved for disclosure.
Record the presumed date only when it is known and authorized.

The packet should now show approved case wording. It should contain no inferred allegation.

Record the presumed place only when it is known and authorized.
Add neutral language that describes the person's current procedural status.

You should see a limited statement of suspicion. You should see no declaration that the person committed the offense.

Copy the official callback route already approved in the authority header.
Add an article 61-1 written-convocation checklist to the packet.

Add an article 61-1 audition-opening checklist to the packet.
Set the requested action to the action approved for this matrix row.

What Do the Article 61-1 Checklists Cover?

The written-convocation checklist covers:

The approved description of the suspected offense.
The presumed date when it is known and authorized.
The presumed place when it is known and authorized.
The right to lawyer assistance.
The applicable access conditions for assistance with lawyer intervention or legal aid.
The method for designating court-appointed counsel.
The locations where legal advice can be obtained before the hearing.

The audition-opening checklist covers:

The right to leave at any time.
Interpreter assistance where applicable.
The choice to make declarations.
The choice to answer questions.
The choice to remain silent.
Lawyer assistance when the offense is punishable by imprisonment.
Access to legal advice.

Add a result log for every attempted or completed contact.
Assign the packet to the named reviewer authorized for this contact.

You now have a suspected-person packet that carries the correct procedural checks. Its wording stays within the approved disclosure boundary.

Create the possible-victim or witness packet

A possible victim or witness may hold useful evidence without knowing that a document is false. This packet preserves evidence while avoiding language that assigns knowledge or guilt.

Return to the synthetic possible-victim or witness row in the classification matrix.
Confirm that the row permits contact rather than requiring a hold or escalation.

The row should show a non-accusatory contact purpose. It should also show the disclosure ceiling approved for this role.

Create a possible-victim or witness contact packet in the official case system.
Link the packet to the selected matrix row.

The packet should now inherit the provisional role. It should also point back to the authority governing contact.

State the approved contact purpose without saying the person knowingly used a false document.
Add the approved evidence-preservation request.

You should see a request focused on preserving relevant material. The request should contain no unsupported claim about the person's knowledge.

Record the approved disclosure ceiling from the matrix row.
Add the official contact route approved in the authority header.

The packet should now make the contact boundary visible to its reviewer. Anything outside that boundary remains undisclosed.

Add a dedicated field for mistaken identity.
Add a dedicated field for possible coercion.

Add a dedicated field for purchase circumstances.
Add a dedicated field for reported loss.

These fields give the recipient's account a defined place in the record. They also preserve facts that may contradict the provisional classification.

Add a dedicated field for new exculpatory information.
Add a mandatory return to the classification matrix before any further status-based contact.

Why Must Status Changes Return to the Matrix?

Mistaken identity or new exculpatory information can undermine the role that justified the original contact. Returning to the matrix forces a new evidence-linked decision before anyone changes the contact purpose.

Add a result log for each attempted or completed contact.
Assign a named reviewer to the packet.

That is a meaningful safeguard. Your possible-victim or witness packet can now preserve evidence without turning uncertainty into an accusation.

Create the administrative-referral packet

The competent authority decides the administrative response within its own powers. The judicial referral therefore asks for a defined check without promising withdrawal or another outcome.

Create an administrative-referral packet for the competent authority.
Link the packet to the case authority header.

The referral should now show the authority that permits it. It should contain no operational detail beyond that approved scope.

Link the packet to the relevant evidence-control record entries.
Enter the identity reference approved for referral.

The packet should point to secured evidence locations. It should not duplicate evidence content.

Enter the document type approved for referral.
Enter the document identifier approved for referral.

You should see only the identifiers needed for the administrative check. Unrelated case information should remain outside the packet.

Record the approved verification result.
Record the unresolved question when verification remains incomplete.

The referral should distinguish a completed verification from an unresolved issue. It should not convert uncertainty into a conclusion.

Add the judicial procedure reference.
Add the secure evidence-location references.

The competent authority should now be able to trace the request without receiving copied evidence. The referral remains connected to the official evidence regime.

Enter an urgency rationale only when the written approval authorizes it.
State the specific administrative check being requested.

The packet should ask for a defined check. It should make no promise about withdrawal or cancellation.

Add a result log for the referral response.
Assign the referral to its named reviewer.

Your administrative referral now keeps the requested check with the competent authority. It also avoids promising regularization or any particular administrative decision.

Before you compare the three packets, which fields do you expect to change when the recipient's role changes?

Display the three synthetic packets side by side in the official case system.

You should see three different contact purposes. You should also see three different limits on what each packet asks or reveals.

Compare the contact purpose across all three packets.
Compare the approved disclosure ceiling across all three packets.
Compare the requested action across all three packets.
Compare the rights or safeguards handling across all three packets.
Confirm that every packet has a result log.
Confirm that every packet has a named reviewer.

The suspected-person packet should carry the article 61-1 checks. The possible-victim or witness packet should preserve evidence through non-accusatory contact.

The administrative referral should request only a defined administrative check. It should contain no promise about the authority's eventual decision.

Trace each packet back to its classification matrix row.
Trace each packet back to the authority header.
Trace each packet back to its evidence references.

Each trace should resolve without an unsupported assumption. Any missing link means the packet stays out of release review.

Do the Packets Still Look Interchangeable?

Return to the relevant matrix row to confirm the provisional role.
Remove any sentence that exceeds the approved disclosure ceiling.
Replace any promised outcome with the exact authorized request.
Use synthetic content only when requesting help. Help me audit the role boundaries in my three packets.

Strong work. Your three packets now turn provisional role decisions into controlled contact plans. Next, you will run the final authority, secrecy, evidence, rights, and release gate.

Run the Disclosure and Rights Gate

Your three role-specific packets now connect each proposed contact to a provisional role. However, careful wording cannot protect the case when authority, evidence, rights, or review records are incomplete.

This step adds a six-gate release review that tests every synthetic packet before operational use. A packet advances only when its authority, role, secrecy, evidence, rights, and release checks support that decision.

In this step, get ready to:

Run the authority and role gates on a synthetic packet.
Run the secrecy and evidence gates.
Complete the rights and release gates with a documented decision.

Check authority and role

The first two gates ask whether the proposed contact stays inside the written approval. They also test whether the provisional role follows the cited evidence while preserving the presumption of innocence.

Return to the official case system from earlier.
Add a case-local review record titled Six-Gate Release Checklist.

You should see a blank review record inside the authorized case environment. This record becomes the release-control history for the packet.

Select one synthetic suspected-person packet as the subject of the review.
Link the existing Case Authority Header to the review record.
Link the packet's matching Provisional Classification Matrix row to the review record.

The review record should now point to the proposed contact authority and its evidence-linked provisional role.

Transcribe the current procedural posture directly from the case file.
Compare the packet's proposed purpose, channel, and audience with the exact written authorization.

The authority gate should now show whether the packet remains inside the approved scope. Any missing authorization creates a hold.

Record the authority-gate outcome as pass or hold.

What do these gates prove?

The authority gate proves that the written approval permits the proposed contact purpose, channel, and audience.

The role gate proves that the contact purpose follows supported facts. A name or phone number alone never establishes a role.

Trace the provisional role to the cited source reference and precise supported fact.
Review the row's corroboration status, contradictory information, exculpatory information, and identity-confidence note.

You should be able to move from the evidence reference to the provisional role without adding an unsupported assumption.

Record the role-gate outcome as pass or hold.
Assign the named escalation owner to any unresolved authority or role hold.

Your checklist now displays separate authority and role outcomes. A role supported by evidence still remains provisional until the required reviewer confirms it.

Cannot represent a gate clearly?

Use only a case-local field or note type already approved for this investigation.
Keep the packet on hold when the official environment cannot show the decision basis clearly.
Need help mapping the required checks into your authorized system? Help me structure the authority and role gates without exporting case information.

Check secrecy and evidence

The secrecy gate limits what the packet may disclose. The evidence gate protects evidence provenance by keeping each fact linked to its authorized source and handling record.

Why are these separate gates?

The secret of the investigation under article 11 controls disclosure from the procedure. The packet therefore stays within the approved disclosure ceiling.

The evidence controls associated with article 56 protect seized objects, documents, and computer data. Source references let the reviewer verify a fact without copying evidence into the contact packet.

Compare every proposed disclosure with the packet's approved disclosure ceiling.
Verify that the packet omits investigative methods and unrelated identities.

The secrecy review should now show a defined limit for every disclosed fact. Material outside that limit remains outside the packet.

Trace every disclosed fact to its secure-storage source reference.
Confirm that seized originals or data remain inside the authorized evidence regime.

Each proposed disclosure should now lead back to a source reference. The underlying evidence remains under its existing custody and integrity controls.

Verify that every review access is logged in the official environment.
Verify that every derivative work is logged in the official environment.
Record the secrecy-gate outcome as pass or hold.
Record the evidence-gate outcome as pass or hold.

The checklist should now display four gate outcomes. The source references and official logs show how each disclosure reached the review.

Record a visible hold reason for every unresolved secrecy or evidence item.
Assign a named escalation owner to each unresolved secrecy or evidence hold.

Any unresolved secrecy or evidence issue now has a visible route back to an accountable reviewer.

Check rights and release

The final gates test the procedural information attached to the proposed contact. For a suspected-person packet, the applicable audition libre protections must be reviewable before release.

Review the written-convocation checklist against the applicable information in article 61-1.
Review the audition-opening checklist for the right to leave, applicable interpreter assistance, declarations or answers or silence, lawyer assistance, and access to legal advice.

The rights review should now show which protections apply to the proposed contact. Each applicable item must be present before the gate can pass.

Record the applicability decision for each rights item.
Record the rights-gate outcome as pass or hold.

Record whether the proposed contact includes a summons.
Verify that any proposed compelled appearance has the prosecutor authorization required under article 78.

The checklist should distinguish ordinary authorized contact from a summons or proposed compelled appearance. The packet stays on hold whenever the necessary authority is absent.

Verify the official callback details in the packet.
Record any interpreter-routing need.

The recipient now has an official route back to the unit. Any language-support need is visible before contact.

Record any lawyer-routing need.
List every unresolved prosecutor question.

The review now separates operational details from questions that require prosecutor direction.

Enter the reviewer's identity.
Enter the decision timestamp.

The decision now has a named reviewer and a fixed point in time.

Enter the packet version.
Record the release-gate outcome as pass or hold.

Before you inspect all six outcomes, which final status do you think the current record supports?

Inspect the authority, role, secrecy, evidence, rights, and release outcomes in the completed checklist.

You should see six pass results or at least one visible hold result. This is the evidence that the release decision follows the review record.

Record a visible reason for every unresolved hold.
Assign a named escalation owner to every unresolved hold.

Before you set the final status, does every gate support release?

Set the final status to ready only when all six gates pass. Otherwise set it to hold or revise.

You should now see a completed six-gate review with a final ready, hold, or revise status. No unresolved packet carries a ready status.

Strong finish. Your protocol now blocks release until authority, evidence handling, disclosure limits, applicable rights, and reviewer accountability are all visible in one controlled record.

Secret mission

Add a Non-Response Decision Matrix

Silence, refusal, and identity disputes can pressure a contact team to improvise. Build a prosecutor-bounded decision matrix that turns each exception into a logged hold or authorized next step.

Clean Up Your Resources

Your protocol remains inside the authorized environment without a new ongoing project cost. Choose how to leave the controlled work safely.

Resources you used:

No independently teardownable resources were created in this project.

Keep everything running

No action is needed. Choose this option if controlled operational use continues under the existing authorization.

Retain all protocol artifacts in the official case system under existing access controls.
Keep every evidence reference connected to secure evidence storage.
Use the Six-Gate Release Checklist before any later contact.
Escalate any unresolved item to its named owner.

Pause - I'll come back to this later

Pause operational use while preserving the reviewed state for a safe return.

Leave every packet at its recorded ready, hold, or revise status.
Keep unresolved items assigned to their named escalation owner.
Preserve the Exception Decision Matrix hard stop before any later contact.
Recheck the written authorization before resuming operational use.

Delete - I don't want to use this again

Case records and evidence have no learner-controlled delete path in this project. Choose this option only to request an authorized disposition decision.

Keep every protocol artifact in place until the responsible authority records a disposition decision.
Keep every evidence item under the authorized evidence regime.
Route the disposition request to the named escalation owner.
Follow the case-specific retention direction recorded by the responsible authority.

Nice Work!

Strong work. Your prosecutor-reviewable protocol now controls each proposed contact from evidence classification through release.

You've learned how to:

Build a case-local authority and evidence-control record from exact approvals. It keeps evidence tied to secure-storage references.
Expose the one-size-fits-all failure with synthetic profiles. You used evidence-linked provisional roles to produce separate contact packets for each approved purpose.
Apply a six-gate release review to expose unresolved authority or rights issues. Any unresolved packet stays on hold with a visible reason plus a named escalation owner.
Complete the Secret Mission by adding a prosecutor-bounded exception matrix. It turns non-response or mistaken identity into logged authorized decisions.

Ready to quiz yourself?