Define the proposed intervention
Set the account action, customer and organisational consequences and Required Confidence.
HCIIF IN PRACTICE · FINANCIAL SERVICES
A high-risk alert.
How strong is its basis?
An AI-assisted fraud alert recommends restricting a customer account, but the underlying sources differ in date, purpose and verification.
The information
challenge.
The score is high, but a score is not proof.
The alert combines transaction activity, customer records and an external indicator. One record is current, another has not been recently verified, and the external indicator has limited context.
The organisation must respond proportionately while considering fraud exposure, customer impact and the evidence available.
Trace the alert and its inputs
Identify the relevant EIAs and show provenance, currency, verification, model contribution and material transformation.
Separate indicator from conclusion
Establish Current Confidence, limitations and any Confidence Gap before the score is treated as evidence of wrongdoing.
Apply accountable judgement
Present the confidence basis and review triggers through the IIP so an authorised role can decide a proportionate response.
ILLUSTRATIVE INFORMATION INTEGRITY PASSPORT
What confidence is justified?
- Confidence basis
- A current transaction pattern is supported; other inputs have verification and context limitations.
- Justified reliance
- Sufficient for proportionate review, but not by itself proof of wrongdoing.
- Accountability
- The authorised decision-maker retains responsibility for intervention and customer impact.
- Review triggers
- New verification, customer evidence, model review or a change in transaction context.
HCIIF outcome
The organisation can use the alert as governed decision support, with its confidence basis and limitations visible rather than treating an automated score as a definitive conclusion.
This example illustrates information-integrity management and does not determine a regulatory or customer decision.