A practical route from operating evidence to a defensible decision.
This guide turns the subject into four connected questions. Use it to structure a team discussion, challenge assumptions and agree what must be verified after action.
✓Label measured, derived, modelled, representative and unavailable evidence.
✓Preserve source, transformation, model and approval lineage.
✓Keep material decisions under qualified human oversight.
Evidence should carry its confidence
Every output should distinguish directly measured information from derived, modelled, representative and unavailable evidence.
Provenance enables challenge
Teams need to know where a value came from, when it was observed, how it was transformed and which assumptions influenced it.
Models support rather than replace judgement
Material operational and investment decisions should retain qualified human review, explicit constraints and accountable approval.
Governance is continuous
Sources, assumptions and models change. Review them as operating conditions evolve and preserve a traceable record of material decisions.
Evidence confidence model
Challenging a modelled savings recommendation
A portfolio recommendation was paused when its provenance view showed that occupancy was representative rather than measured. The team tested a sensitivity range, added the limitation to the approval record and prioritised occupancy evidence before treating the result as an investment case.
Before this decision moves forward
01Classify every material input and output.
02Version models, assumptions and transformations.
03Define approval authority and escalation rules.
04Record limitations with decision impact.
05Review evidence when sources or operations change.
Carry the evidence through the full decision.
Agree the reference position and name material gaps.
Compare options under consistent conditions and visible assumptions.
Measure what happened and return the outcome to the operating model.