1 · Intake
- outcomes_q2.csv
- Youth wellbeing survey
- Case notes extract
How it works
A practical path: bring in evidence, review what it supports, see what evidence can permit, then decide with the limits visible.
CIIS is for teams that must explain what the evidence supports, what should stay internal, and what a shareability ceiling can permit. 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.
1. Start with the decision you need to support
So every later step ties back to a real reporting or governance question.
Agree the program, who will read the information, and what the output needs to be able to support.
2. Bring in your evidence
So conclusions stay linked to source material, not orphaned numbers.
Use CSV-first bulk import, plus scoped document workflows and manual entry. Source context stays attached.
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. Separate indicator objects are used only where the pilot includes them.
4. Review what the evidence supports
So weak or missing evidence is visible before outsiders see the report.
Surface quality signals, gaps, cautions, and limits before the material goes to boards, funders, or partners.
5. See what is ready to share
So you send information that matches the audience, evidence strength, and review status.
Prepare evidence-supported outputs such as the CIIS Executive Impact Summary in facilitated guided-pilot use. That summary is not a body-safe external report.
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.
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
2 · Structure
3 · Review
Our program improved youth wellbeing.
4 · Shareability
5 · Decide
Survey and attendance data suggest improved self-reported wellbeing among participants who completed the program, with limits on comparability.
Human approve
Sample illustration only. A guided pilot uses your evidence, review context, and governance rules, not this demo.
ciis · evidence workspace · illustrative preview
Scene 1 of 5: Intake. Sample illustration only. A guided pilot uses your evidence, review context, and governance rules, not this demo.
After review, each outcome statement carries one of four statuses. They describe what the evidence can permit. Your organisation still decides what to send.
Ready to share
Current evidence permits this level of use. Publication or use remains a human organisational decision.
Share with limits
The evidence can support this going out only with the stated limits attached. People still decide whether to send it.
Should stay internal
Useful for the team. Current evidence does not support external use yet.
Not ready to share
Missing evidence, unresolved review, or scope limits. Not a basis for sending yet.
See the full evidence stack model on the What CIIS does page.
Scope a CIIS pilot to see how the workflow maps to your outcomes and reporting context.
Scope a CIIS pilot