CB.8:4.6 - Learn from cases without making the case public

Keep a proportionate account sufficient to explain consequential decisions, support review and recognise recurrence. Use the normal permitted record and its access and retention conditions. An informal clarification may need no separate incident file; a consequential restriction needs a recoverable basis.

Inspect whether the response restored the wanted participation and whether it displaced the burden. A quieter feed may reflect restored usefulness, people leaving, or inability to report. Ask affected people through a workable route; absence of public complaints is not enough to distinguish those outcomes.

When cases reveal an unclear rule, incompatible decisions or missing support, repair that condition through its owner. Compare similar relevant cases while preserving their consequential differences. Prepare moderators on the revised expectation and confirm that participants can discover and use it.

Explain a community-wide change at the level people need: the working difficulty, the changed expectation, when it applies and how to ask or challenge. Protect case details that are unnecessary for that explanation.

Close the incident when the selected actions and any review are complete, the people concerned have the usable result, and outstanding work has a recipient. Reopen for material new evidence, failed protection, an inaccessible review route or recurrence that defeats the earlier remedy.