Messy inputs
Spreadsheets, surveys, case notes, and proxies arrive with uneven quality.
For councils, NGOs, PHNs, and community-sector teams
CIIS — the Collaborative Impact Intelligence System
Know what you can safely claim before your next board, funder, or public report.
Your team is about to report. Some of those sentences are stronger than the evidence behind them. CIIS shows you which ones — before they reach a board, funder, or public audience.
Request a guided pilot conversation scoped to your outcomes and evidence.
1
Bring evidence
Spreadsheets, surveys, service records, notes, and proxy indicators.
2
Test claims
Trace each statement to the evidence, limits, and review context behind it.
3
Decide what leaves
Ready to share, internal only, needs more evidence, or stop.
Illustrative claim review — Community meals program
Synthetic demoParticipation improved food security for 74% of clients.
Ready to share
Evidence supports the statement with noted coverage limits.
The program reduced social isolation among older participants.
Needs review
Survey sample is small; causal wording needs tightening.
Hospital admissions fell 23% in the service area.
Blocked — evidence too weak
No comparison group; population-wide wording cannot be supported.
Evidence controls what can safely leave the team.
The problem
The report is due. The evidence is messier than the story.
Your team is due to report to a board, funder, or public audience. The narrative is already forming, but the spreadsheets, survey exports, case notes, and proxy indicators do not cleanly support every sentence you are about to publish.
Narrative risk
A confident sentence can outrun the evidence behind it.
Review gaps
Limitations get discovered late, often after drafts have momentum.
Why current approaches fail
Staff, dashboards, and generic AI each leave a gap
Most teams already have people, charts, and drafting tools. The missing piece is a structured answer to one question: which statement is safe to publish right now, with this evidence, in this governance context?
Staff review alone
Your team knows the programs, but assumptions travel into review. Gaps get discovered after drafts have momentum.
CIIS adds: External structure applied to your evidence — with permission statuses, limits, and next actions visible before release.
Dashboards and BI tools
Charts show what happened. They do not say whether a sentence in your annual report can safely be published.
CIIS adds: Links each claim to source evidence, review context, and a shareability decision — not just a metric.
Generic AI drafting
Models draft confidently from weak evidence. The output sounds right before anyone checks what it can support.
CIIS adds: Structures what can leave the organisation, what must stay internal, and what needs fixing — with people accountable for the decision.
The output
CIIS turns evidence into a reporting decision
The point is not to make the strongest-sounding claim. It is to know which claim can safely travel, which should stay inside the team, and what needs fixing before a report goes out.
Ready to share
A claim has enough evidence, context, and review to leave the team.
Use internally only
The evidence is useful for learning, but not strong enough for public reporting.
Needs more work
A gap, caveat, proxy, or reviewer question needs attention before release.
Stop or narrow the claim
The safest move is to change the wording before it reaches a board or funder.
Try it
Paste a claim. See sample governance flags.
This is an illustrative preview of how CIIS surfaces weak wording, limitations, and shareability — not your data and not production AI. Methodology explains what runs in a real pilot.
Or try: · ·
Sample illustration only. A guided pilot uses your evidence, review context, and governance rules — not this demo.
Run the sample review to see governed wording, limitations, and a permission label — the same ideas CIIS applies with your evidence in a pilot.
CIIS · Collaborative Impact Intelligence System
From weak claim to governed claim.
CIIS helps teams test wording against evidence before reports go out.
Before
Weak claim
Our program improved youth wellbeing.
- Too broad
- Causality unclear
- No limitation shown
After CIIS review
Evidence-governed wording
Survey and attendance data suggest improved self-reported wellbeing among participants who completed the program.
- Public use: Limited
- Key limitation: No comparison group
- Next action: Add follow-up or comparative evidence
Limitations are surfaced early and carried through.
CIIS · Collaborative Impact Intelligence System
Visible evidence. Visible limitations.
CIIS shows what supports a claim, what limits it, and what to do next.
Evidence stack
- Evidence type
- Third-party evaluation
- Review state
- Under review
- Decision-use eligibility
- With limitations
- Uncertainty
- Medium
- Next action
- Request comparability check
Claim permissions
Report-eligible
Supported and safe to include.
With limitations
Usable, but caveats must stay visible.
Internal only
Useful for learning, not external reporting.
Blocked
Not ready to claim.
Limitations are design features, not footnotes.
What you get
6–8 week restricted pilot
Full pilot outline — structured validation on a real project, not a generic product tour.
- A real project and reporting question — scoped in writing
- Evidence import and structured outcome statements
- Review of what your evidence supports before anything goes external
- A report-style output where the data allows
- A clear recommendation: continue, adjust scope, or stop
Request a guided pilot conversation scoped to your outcomes and evidence.
Who it is for
We start with NGOs and community organisations where claim risk is high and pilots move fast. Councils, PHN-funded providers, and funders follow, with the same product scoped to your governance context.
First wedge
NGOs & community organisations
Defend impact claims built from messy spreadsheets, surveys, and service records — before the annual report goes out.
Councils
Place-based programs and grants where one overclaimed sentence can erode trust.
PHN-funded providers
Commissioned programs that must show progress without pretending the evidence is stronger than it is.
Funders & evaluators
Compare programs on evidence quality, not activity counts or framework jargon.
Trust boundaries
Evidence surfaces. People decide. Limits stay visible.
CIIS supports judgement; it does not replace it. CIIS does not automate funding, clinical, or policy decisions. We label what is live, pilot-scoped, and planned — including outputs you cannot download today.
Free resource
Get the evidence audit checklist
A plain-language checklist for reviewing whether your outcome statements are ready to share externally — before they reach a board, funder, or public report. No commitment required.
No spam. We use your email to send the checklist and occasional updates about CIIS. You can unsubscribe at any time. See our privacy policy.
Test your weakest claim
Bring the sentence you are least confident about. We will show what your evidence can safely support — and what needs fixing before it goes to a board, funder, or public report.
Request a guided pilot conversation scoped to your outcomes and evidence.