Source and evidence register
What information exists, where it came from, what it establishes and what it does not.
A traceable basis for discussion, challenge and later revision.A fixed-scope Symbiain offer / Iain Davie
Decision Integrity
Review.
Bring one difficult question. Leave with a written account of the evidence, the alternatives and the checks that matter next.
A fixed-scope review for decisions where information is scattered, explanations conflict and the cost of being wrong matters.
For selected early collaborators, Symbiain is also available as a limited founding pilot: a defined, evidence-led test of the method on one real question.
Discuss a review →See a worked example ↓
A decision is treated as a connected field, not a single answer. The plate is an orientation aid—not evidence and not a prediction.
How the relationship works
Your question.
Your authority.
The work is collaborative. You agree the question, the information used and the outcome that would make the review useful. You and the relevant professionals retain every decision.
- 01Named purpose
One agreed question, source boundary and useful outcome.
- 02Permissioned material
Only information supplied or expressly agreed for the review.
- 03Visible challenge
Assumptions, alternatives, gaps and corrections stay inspectable.
- 04Human authority
The client and relevant professionals retain judgement and action.
The offer
See what is known.
Show what is inferred.
Verify what matters next.
The review does not predict outcomes, profile people or replace specialist, legal, financial, technical or management judgement. It makes the decision environment clearer: what is known, what is inferred, what else may explain the situation, where the risks sit and what should be verified next.
The written deliverable
Five parts.
One clearer field.
A practical working record designed to make the decision easier to examine, challenge and improve before commitment.
Field Map
A concise visual account of the situation: actors, constraints, dependencies, pressures, hand-offs and moving parts.
A shared frame for seeing how the decision environment is connected.Competing explanations
The principal interpretations, the assumptions beneath them and the evidence that could distinguish between them.
A disciplined challenge to a premature single reading.Decision-risk and uncertainty register
What could materially affect the decision, what remains uncertain and where confidence may be misplaced.
A calibrated record of decision exposure rather than a false assurance.Verification plan
The practical next checks, questions, records and expert inputs most likely to improve the decision before commitment.
A clear route from uncertainty to the next defensible action.
Five distinct records preserve the route from source to decision. Keeping them connected prevents a polished conclusion from hiding weak evidence or unresolved uncertainty.
Worked demonstration / fictional records
A late delivery.
A better next decision.
Three records, five claims and one corrected answer. Open the interactive example to trace a claim, add fictional evidence and inspect what changes. This is a teaching case, not a measured model test.
Keep the dates straight.
The order requires delivery on 12 June. The supplier reports readiness on 11 June. The carrier records collection on 13 June and receipt on 17 June.
Leave the cause open.
A supplier problem, a collection-booking delay or a transit problem need different evidence. The arrival date alone cannot choose between them.
Verify before committing.
The operations lead requests the booking trail and written confirmation of the next delivery before deciding how to respond.
The useful change: a broad allegation becomes a dated evidence record, competing explanations and specific checks owned by a named person.
Try the five-claim audit →Before you commit
A straightforward
first engagement.
- What you provide
- A short account of the question, the decision owner, the deadline and the types of records available. The first enquiry only needs enough context to assess fit.
- How scope is agreed
- A written proposal defines the question, source set, exclusions, deliverables and review conversation. Access and confidentiality arrangements are agreed before sensitive records are shared.
- Timing
- The proposal sets a first-draft date and a review date around the decision deadline and the evidence available. Timing is confirmed before work begins; urgent or larger questions may need a narrower first stage.
- Fee
- A fee is agreed for the defined scope before you commit. The source volume, complexity and specialist input required shape the proposal. Founding-pilot terms are discussed individually.
- What you receive
- A written review connecting the evidence register, field map, competing explanations, uncertainty and verification plan, with time to discuss corrections and next steps.
A bounded process
From pressure
to practical verification.
Scope, timing, available sources, confidentiality expectations and a fixed written deliverable are agreed before work begins. No confidential material should be sent by ordinary email before the appropriate route is agreed.
- 01Frame
Agree the actual decision or inquiry the review needs to support.
- 02Bound
Set the period, geography, actors, source base, exclusions and confidentiality expectations.
- 03Register
Separate source, report, observation, inference, hypothesis and allegation.
- 04Map
Show dependencies, incentives, pressures, constraints, feedback and decision points.
- 05Challenge
Retain alternatives and specify the evidence that could discriminate between them.
- 06Verify
Deliver a concise review with unknowns, risks and next verification actions visible.
Best suited to
For decisions that need to be
clearer, safer and defensible.
The review is especially useful when a decision needs to be made under time pressure, a single narrative has become too comfortable, or the people responsible need a shared account of what should be checked before proceeding.
- 01Strategic-materials, supply-chain, industrial or market questions.
- 02Investment, partnership, governance or organisational decisions.
- 03Research programmes where evidence, interpretation and institutional context are entangled.
- 04Situations where a decision must be credible, explainable and open to later review.
- 05Intelligence analysis and assessment where multiple sources, competing accounts and uncertainty need disciplined treatment.
- 06Quantitative evaluation and model challenge where data, assumptions, scenarios or forecasts need clearer provenance and limits.
- 07Risk, resilience and strategic exposure across dependencies, bottlenecks and changing conditions.
- 08Programme, policy and institutional design where objectives, incentives, implementation and unintended effects interact.
What the review changes
Move from a persuasive account
to an inspectable decision.
The value is not another layer of certainty. It is a clearer record of what supports the decision, what could still overturn it and who must verify the next material point.
The final output is a route to better verification: source, claim, alternative, exposure, owner and next check remain visible.
Professional boundary
Symbiain does not provide regulated advice, technical certification, medical guidance, legal opinion, sanctions screening, forensic investigation, investment research or counterparty due diligence.
It does not convert a pattern into proof, an association into a cause, a public report into verified intelligence or a working hypothesis into a prediction.
Where specialist judgement is required, the review should help define the question for an appropriately qualified professional—not replace that professional.
Founding pilot enquiries
Test the method
on one real question.
Symbiain is opening a small number of fixed-scope founding pilots for organisations, research teams and operators facing a consequential question under uncertainty.
A pilot applies the Decision Integrity Review to one defined situation: separating source from interpretation, mapping relationships and pressure, holding credible alternatives open, and identifying what should be verified before action.
The purpose is not to replace professional, operational, clinical, legal, financial, safety or management authority. It is to make the route from evidence to decision more inspectable—and to learn, with the participating team, where the method is useful, incomplete or needs correction.
A founding pilot can include
- 01
A defined decision or operational question
- 02
A source and evidence register
- 03
A field map of actors, dependencies, constraints and pressure points
- 04
Competing explanations and disconfirmation criteria
- 05
A decision-risk and escalation view
- 06
A short correction and learning record
Decision Integrity Review
Bring one consequential
question into view.
Each review is agreed in advance, with clear source boundaries, confidentiality expectations and a defined written deliverable.