Disclosurely
Go to Disclosurely

Reviewer Guide - Disclosurely User Guides

Complete guide for reviewers on investigation oversight, quality assurance, approval workflows, access permissions, and reviewer role best practices.

Guide for Reviewers

Complete guide for reviewers on oversight responsibilities, quality assurance, and investigation review best practices.

Reviewer Role Overview

As a Reviewer in your organization's whistleblowing program, you provide critical oversight and quality assurance for investigations. This read-only role is typically assigned to compliance officers, audit committee members, legal counsel, or senior management who need visibility into whistleblowing cases without directly conducting investigations. Your oversight ensures investigations are conducted thoroughly, fairly, and in compliance with regulatory requirements and organizational policies.

The Reviewer role balances transparency with confidentiality. You can access assigned cases to monitor investigation quality, verify compliance with procedures, and provide guidance to investigators, but you cannot modify case data or directly participate in investigations. This separation ensures appropriate oversight while maintaining investigative independence and clear accountability for investigation outcomes.

Understanding Your Access Level

Read-Only Permissions

Reviewers have view-only access to assigned cases, which includes:

What You Can Access:

  • Complete case details including allegations and evidence
  • Investigation timeline and status updates
  • Case notes and investigator documentation
  • Evidence files and attachments
  • Secure message exchanges between investigators and reporters
  • Case resolution and outcomes
  • Audit trail for the case

What You Cannot Do:

  • Modify case information or status
  • Add case notes or comments
  • Send messages to reporters
  • Upload evidence or documents
  • Assign or reassign cases
  • Change case priority or category
  • Delete or archive cases

Why Read-Only Access:

  • Maintains clear accountability (investigators responsible for decisions)
  • Prevents accidental modifications to case record
  • Ensures investigation independence
  • Provides oversight without interference
  • Creates clear audit trail of who made what changes

Learn more about roles in the Team Management documentation.

Assigned vs. All Cases

Case Assignment Methods:

1. Category-Based Assignment:

  • Automatically assigned all cases in specific categories
  • Example: Legal counsel reviews all harassment cases
  • Example: CFO reviews all financial misconduct cases
  • Ensures subject matter expertise oversight

2. Individual Case Assignment:

  • Administrator assigns specific high-profile or sensitive cases
  • Used for cases requiring specialized oversight
  • Escalated cases needing senior review
  • Cases with potential legal or regulatory implications

3. Department-Based Assignment:

  • Assigned cases from specific business units or locations
  • Used for decentralized oversight models
  • Regional compliance officers review local cases
  • Business unit leaders monitor their areas

Requesting Access: If you believe you should have access to a case but don't, contact your organization administrator. All access is logged in the audit trail for accountability.

Key Reviewer Responsibilities

Investigation Oversight

Monitoring Investigation Quality:

Thoroughness Review:

  • Are all allegations fully investigated?
  • Is evidence collection comprehensive?
  • Were relevant witnesses interviewed?
  • Is documentation complete and clear?
  • Are investigation steps logical and appropriate?
  • Is timeline reasonable given case complexity?

Procedural Compliance:

  • Are regulatory timelines being met (7-day acknowledgment, 3-month resolution)?
  • Is the investigation following organizational procedures?
  • Are proper evidence handling protocols observed?
  • Is confidentiality being maintained appropriately?
  • Are subjects given opportunity to respond?
  • Is there appropriate escalation for serious findings?

Fairness and Impartiality:

  • Is investigation conducted without bias?
  • Are both sides of the story considered?
  • Is evidence evaluated objectively?
  • Are conclusions supported by evidence?
  • Is the standard of proof appropriate?
  • Are similar cases handled consistently?

See detailed investigation process in Investigation Workflow.

Quality Assurance

Case Documentation Review:

Essential Documentation:

  • Clear statement of allegations
  • Comprehensive investigation plan
  • Detailed interview notes or transcripts
  • Evidence inventory and descriptions
  • Analysis of evidence and findings
  • Subject's response to allegations
  • Conclusions and recommendations
  • Rationale for determination

Documentation Quality Indicators:

  • Chronological and organized
  • Complete and comprehensive
  • Objective and factual
  • Clear and understandable
  • Properly cited evidence
  • Logical flow from evidence to conclusions
  • Free of bias or unsupported assumptions

Red Flags Requiring Attention:

  • Missing key investigation steps
  • Incomplete documentation
  • Conclusions not supported by evidence
  • Procedural violations
  • Inconsistent treatment of similar cases
  • Missing subject response
  • Unclear findings or recommendations
  • Approaching or missed deadlines

Compliance Monitoring

Regulatory Deadline Tracking:

EU Whistleblowing Directive Requirements:

  • 7-day acknowledgment: Confirm receipt acknowledged within timeline
  • 3-month feedback: Monitor progress toward 3-month resolution deadline
  • 6-month extension: Verify documentation if extension needed
  • Status updates: Ensure reporter receives appropriate updates

Documentation for Compliance:

  • All required information collected
  • Timeline documentation maintained
  • Rationale for decisions recorded
  • Compliance with confidentiality requirements
  • Proper handling of personal data
  • Audit trail complete and accurate

Compliance Reporting:

  • Review quarterly compliance reports
  • Identify systemic compliance issues
  • Recommend process improvements
  • Flag cases with compliance concerns
  • Verify remediation of past issues

Learn about compliance requirements in EU Whistleblowing Directive documentation.

Daily Reviewer Workflow

Accessing Your Cases

Dashboard Overview:

  1. Log into Disclosurely platform
  2. Navigate to dashboard showing assigned cases
  3. Review cases by status, priority, or deadline
  4. Use filters to find specific cases
  5. Sort by approaching deadlines or recently updated

Case Filtering:

  • By status: New, investigating, resolved
  • By priority: Critical, high, medium, low
  • By category: Harassment, fraud, safety, etc.
  • By deadline: Cases approaching compliance deadlines
  • By assignment date: Recently assigned to you
  • By investigator: View specific investigator's caseload

Reviewing a Case

Systematic Review Process:

1. Initial Assessment (5-10 minutes):

  • Read reporter's original submission
  • Understand nature and severity of allegations
  • Review evidence provided by reporter
  • Check case priority and assignment
  • Note compliance deadlines
  • Identify any immediate concerns

2. Investigation Review (15-30 minutes):

  • Review investigation plan and methodology
  • Examine evidence collected
  • Read interview notes and witness statements
  • Review investigator's analysis
  • Check subject's response to allegations
  • Evaluate conclusions and findings
  • Assess recommendations for action

3. Quality Check (5-10 minutes):

  • Verify all investigation steps completed
  • Confirm documentation is complete
  • Check for procedural compliance
  • Verify timeline adherence
  • Ensure confidentiality maintained
  • Review for bias or fairness concerns
  • Check consistency with similar cases

4. Outcome Assessment (5 minutes):

  • Are findings supported by evidence?
  • Are recommendations appropriate and proportionate?
  • Are compliance requirements met?
  • Is reporter communication adequate?
  • Is case ready for closure?

Providing Feedback

How to Communicate Concerns:

To Investigator:

  • Contact investigator directly via email or phone
  • Specific, constructive feedback
  • Reference particular documentation or evidence
  • Suggest additional investigation steps if needed
  • Request clarification on unclear points
  • Set deadline for addressing concerns

To Administrator:

  • Escalate serious concerns to organization administrator
  • Cases with procedural violations
  • Missed compliance deadlines
  • Suspected bias or improper investigation
  • Cases requiring senior management attention
  • Systemic issues affecting multiple cases

Documentation:

  • Document all feedback provided
  • Maintain record of concerns raised
  • Track resolution of issues identified
  • Note improvements in investigation quality
  • Keep records for audit purposes

Common Reviewer Scenarios

Case Requires Additional Investigation

Indicators:

  • Key witnesses not interviewed
  • Available evidence not collected
  • Incomplete analysis of allegations
  • Gaps in investigation timeline
  • Inconsistent findings
  • Conclusions not fully supported

Your Actions:

  1. Document specific gaps or concerns
  2. Contact investigator with detailed feedback
  3. Request supplemental investigation
  4. Set reasonable deadline for completion
  5. Follow up to verify issues addressed
  6. Re-review case after additional work completed

Compliance Deadline at Risk

Warning Signs:

  • Case approaching 7-day acknowledgment deadline
  • Investigation at 2+ months with limited progress
  • Complex case needs extension approval
  • Investigator unresponsive or overloaded
  • Investigation stalled awaiting information

Your Actions:

  1. Alert administrator immediately
  2. Contact investigator to assess status
  3. Determine cause of delay
  4. Recommend reassignment if needed
  5. Escalate to senior management if critical
  6. Document all actions and communications
  7. Monitor until deadline met or extension approved

Potential Retaliation Identified

Retaliation Indicators:

  • Reporter reports adverse treatment
  • Case notes mention workplace changes
  • Subject is reporter's supervisor
  • Reporter mentions fear of retaliation
  • Evidence suggests retaliatory actions

Your Actions:

  1. Escalate immediately to administrator and legal counsel
  2. Document all retaliation concerns
  3. Recommend immediate protective measures
  4. Suggest separate retaliation investigation
  5. Monitor for additional retaliation
  6. Verify organization responds appropriately
  7. Follow up on retaliation investigation

Investigator Bias Suspected

Bias Indicators:

  • One-sided investigation
  • Credible evidence ignored
  • Subject not given fair opportunity to respond
  • Conclusions predetermined
  • Investigator has relationship with subject
  • Inconsistent treatment compared to similar cases

Your Actions:

  1. Document specific examples of bias
  2. Escalate to administrator immediately
  3. Recommend reassignment to different investigator
  4. Consider whether investigation needs to restart
  5. Review investigator's other cases for patterns
  6. Recommend training or corrective action
  7. Ensure fair outcome for reporter and subject

Best Practices for Reviewers

Maintaining Objectivity

Independent Review:

  • Review cases without preconceived notions
  • Evaluate evidence objectively
  • Consider both favorable and unfavorable evidence
  • Don't let personal relationships influence review
  • Challenge your own assumptions
  • Look for evidence that contradicts your initial assessment

Avoiding Conflicts of Interest:

  • Recuse yourself from cases involving:
    • Your direct reports or supervisors
    • Close personal friends or relatives
    • Cases where you have personal knowledge
    • Cases where you have financial interest
  • Disclose any potential conflicts to administrator
  • Document recusal decisions

Effective Communication

With Investigators:

  • Provide timely, constructive feedback
  • Be specific about concerns and suggestions
  • Acknowledge good investigation work
  • Ask questions to understand their reasoning
  • Offer guidance based on your expertise
  • Maintain professional, respectful tone
  • Follow up on outstanding issues

With Administrators:

  • Report systemic issues or patterns
  • Escalate serious concerns promptly
  • Provide regular oversight summaries
  • Recommend process improvements
  • Share best practices observed
  • Flag resource or training needs

Time Management

Prioritizing Reviews:

  • Cases approaching compliance deadlines (highest priority)
  • High-severity allegations (fraud, harassment, safety)
  • Cases flagged by administrator
  • Recently updated cases
  • Cases in final resolution stage
  • Routine monitoring of ongoing investigations

Efficient Review:

  • Develop systematic review checklist
  • Use dashboard filters effectively
  • Focus on high-risk areas first
  • Take detailed notes during review
  • Set aside dedicated review time
  • Don't rush through complex cases

Continuous Improvement

Learning from Cases:

  • Identify trends across multiple investigations
  • Note effective investigation techniques
  • Recognize common investigation mistakes
  • Track recurring compliance issues
  • Observe what makes investigations successful
  • Share insights with investigators and administrators

Professional Development:

  • Stay current on whistleblowing regulations
  • Attend relevant training and conferences
  • Read case studies and best practices
  • Participate in peer review discussions
  • Seek feedback on your review quality
  • Update your review approach based on lessons learned

Getting Help

For Technical Issues:

  • Email: support@disclosurely.com
  • Can't access assigned cases
  • Dashboard display problems
  • Evidence files won't open
  • Password or MFA issues

For Questions About Your Role:

  • Contact your organization administrator
  • Clarify which cases you should review
  • Understand escalation procedures
  • Request access to additional cases
  • Discuss concerns about investigations

For Compliance Questions:

  • Consult your organization's legal counsel
  • Review compliance documentation
  • Contact administrator for process questions
  • Escalate regulatory concerns appropriately
Reviewer Guide - Disclosurely User Guides | Disclosurely Docs