Accountability

Duty Mapping & Violation Detection

Maps statutory duty violations to specific actors and regulatory bodies. Links evidence to relevant professional standards and complaint pathways.

Duty MappingActor AttributionRegulatory RoutingBreach DetectionEvidence Packaging

The Problem

You’ve found the contradictions, the bias, the unsupported claims. Now what? Duty breaches identified in analysis aren’t actionable until they’re mapped to specific professionals, linked to the standards they violated, and routed to the correct regulatory body with a properly structured evidence package. Without this final step, findings remain observations instead of complaints.

How It Works

1Map relevant statutory and professional duties to each actor
2Identify where actions violated duties
3Link violations to specific individuals
4Match breaches to appropriate regulatory bodies
5Organize evidence for complaint submission

Inputs

• Entity registry
• Timeline
• Contradiction findings

Outputs

• Duty breach report
• Regulatory routing
• Complaint packages

What You Get

ACTOR: Dr. Jane Smith | ROLE: Clinical Psychologist | REGULATOR: HCPC

BREACH 1: HCPC Standards of Proficiency §2.7 (evidence-based practice)
  Finding: 4 evaluative claims with no evidential basis
  Evidence: Doc 23 p.7, Doc 31 p.4, Doc 31 p.12, Doc 45 p.2
  Strength scores: 0.08, 0.12, 0.05, 0.15

BREACH 2: BPS Code of Ethics §3.4 (balanced consideration)
  Finding: Directional bias score +0.87 across authored reports
  Evidence: 7 exculpatory findings omitted; binomial test p = 0.008

BREACH 3: HCPC Standards of Conduct §9 (duty of candour)
  Finding: Role change from independent expert to trust employee undisclosed
  Evidence: Doc 89 header vs Doc 92 header; no disclosure in Docs 90–156

COMPLAINT PACKAGE: 3 breaches, 11 supporting documents, 14 specific findings.
ROUTE: HCPC Fitness to Practise

Works With

EEntity Resolution

Identifies who held what role and when, ensuring duty breaches attach to the right professional.

TTemporal Parser

Tracks when duties applied, when deadlines were breached, and establishes the chronological narrative for each complaint.

KContradiction

Provides the inconsistencies that may constitute breaches of professional honesty, accuracy, and record-keeping duties.

AArgumentation

Identifies unsupported claims that breach evidence-based practice requirements.

BBias Detection

Supplies the statistical evidence for impartiality breaches, turning pattern detection into quantified complaint evidence.

Use Cases

Professional misconduct complaints

Building structured HCPC, GMC, or SRA complaints where each allegation is linked to a specific professional standard, supported by cited evidence.

Regulatory filings

Assembling Ofcom complaints (Broadcasting Code violations), ICO complaints (data protection breaches), or LGO complaints (maladministration) with evidence packages structured to each body’s requirements.

Civil claims preparation

Organising findings into a litigation-ready format: duty of care established, breach identified with evidence, causation traced through the timeline, loss documented.

Technical Approach

Statutory duty mapping maintains a structured database of professional codes, regulatory standards, and statutory obligations keyed to role and jurisdiction
Actor-duty assignment cross-references resolved entities and their roles against applicable duty frameworks, tracking when duties commenced and ended
Breach detection applies rule-based matching between engine findings and specific duty provisions, with confidence thresholds to filter noise
Complaint template generation produces body-specific output formats: HCPC Fitness to Practise, Ofcom Broadcasting Code, ICO complaint framework, and LGO maladministration template