Skip to main content

How it works

How governed evidence stays visible

A description of sources, limits and review. The record supports human judgement; it does not grant permission to publish.

CIIS is for teams that must explain what the evidence supports, what should stay internal, and what the evidence can support sharing. The workflow keeps source evidence, interpretation, and limits visible.

Today the path is guided: demos and pilots are scoped to your reporting context rather than offered as a generic self-serve signup.

The path in six steps

  1. 1. Start with the decision you need to support

    So every later step ties back to a real reporting or governance question.

    Agree the programme, who will read the information, and what the output needs to be able to support.

  2. 2. Bring in your evidence

    So conclusions stay linked to source material, not orphaned numbers.

    Source material stays attached to the question. Available intake paths depend on the agreed pilot scope.

  3. 3. Structure outcomes and measures

    So teams share one view of progress instead of competing spreadsheets.

    Turn raw evidence into outcome statements and the measures currently in use, with assumptions kept visible. The pilot includes only the measures agreed for that work.

  4. 4. Review what the evidence supports

    So weak or missing evidence is visible before outsiders see the report.

    Illustrative reviewer flags show how a person can mark a missing source or a causality warning during review, before the material goes to boards, funders or partners.

  5. 5. Keep the limit visible

    So a record of sources and limits is not mistaken for permission to publish.

    A record of sources and limits is not permission to publish. People decide what happens next.

  6. 6. You decide what happens next

    Because software should support judgement, not replace accountability.

    CIIS supports the decision record. It does not decide what to fund, prioritise, or approve.

You → CIIS → you decide

Scroll through an illustrative walkthrough of how evidence moves from intake to a governed summary, with people still accountable for what is shared.

1 · Intake

  • outcomes_q2.csv
  • Youth wellbeing survey
  • Case notes extract

2 · Structure

Outcomes
Measures
Evidence

3 · Review

Illustrative reviewer flags

Our programme improved youth wellbeing.

  • Outcome named without source or scope
  • Causality stated or implied without design support

4 · Shareability

Sources recorded
Limits stay attached
Internal inspection
Not a public statement

5 · Decide

Survey and attendance data suggest improved self-reported wellbeing among participants who completed the programme, with limits on comparability.

Human approve

Sample illustration only. A guided pilot uses your evidence, review context, and governance rules, not this demo.

A record is not permission to publish

These words describe lineage and limits. They do not grant permission to publish or decide what may be sent.

Sources and limits recorded

Lineage is visible. That is not permission to publish or use the statement.

Limits stay attached

A later reading has to keep the recorded limits visible. CIIS does not decide.

Internal inspection

For recovery inside a team. Human review still governs what happens next.

Not a public statement

Missing evidence or open review. Not a score, and not a decision.

See the full evidence stack model on the What CIIS does page.

What CIIS does not do

  • Replace executive, clinical, policy, or programme oversight judgement.
  • Turn weak evidence into certainty.
  • Make compliance claims that depend on your organisation's processes.

Walk through your use case

Scope a CIIS pilot to see how the workflow maps to your outcomes and reporting context.

Scope a CIIS pilot

Related pages

What CIIS does

What CIIS does today

What CIIS does today

See what CIIS does today.

Trust & privacy

Review data and governance posture