Mise

ILLUSTRATIVE REPORT

Here is how we write a finding.

This example demonstrates the writing and reasoning structure. It is fictional, is not based on a client and does not claim a completed engagement.

Illustrative example, not a client finding. Names, circumstances and evidence are deliberately generic.

Finding 07

Illustrative example

Your customer-enquiry triage is a strong automation candidate, but it is not ready yet. Your current data-retention practice would put any AI tool on the wrong side of your own privacy policy. Fix the policy first, confirm the permitted data flow, then assess whether automation remains worthwhile.

  • Risk
  • Opportunity
  • Do this first

The finding covers the risk and the opportunity, and explains the reasoning.

What we found

Illustrative evidence: enquiries are manually sorted into a stable set of categories, but the working mailbox contains personal information beyond the stated retention period. The privacy policy describes a shorter retention period than the team’s actual practice.

Why it matters

Automating the current workflow would make the existing inconsistency faster and harder to notice. Before supplier selection, the organisation needs to decide what data may enter the workflow, how long it is retained and who can review exceptions.

Recommended sequence

  1. Reconcile actual retention practice with the organisation’s approved policy.
  2. Identify the data fields genuinely needed for triage.
  3. Assign an owner for exceptions and complaints.
  4. Only then compare an assisted workflow with the current baseline.

What remains uncertain

No supplier, model or technical architecture has been assessed in this example. It therefore does not support a recommendation to buy or deploy a specific tool.

How a real report differs

A real finding would identify the material reviewed, the people consulted, the scope boundary, relevant obligations, confidence in the conclusion and accountable owners. It would not rely on the generic evidence written above.