> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.cortex.aic.io/workflow-guides/analyse/analytical-assurance.md).

# Analytical Assurance

**Open this area:** In the CORTEX menu, select **Intelligence cycle → Analyse**.

Keep proportionate verification, decision-fitness validation, eight-standard PHIA review and accountable findings in an exact-version dossier.

**Who uses this:** Analyst, Reviewer, Requirement owner.\
**Open in CORTEX:** `/analyse`.\
**In-app guide:** `/help?topic=analytical-assurance`.

**Expected result:** An independent assurer and commissioner record distinct decisions, and the final product carries a concise audience-appropriate assurance statement.

## Before you start

* Analysis and Memory must be enabled and readable in the current workspace. Existing analysis authorship and peer review remain separate.
* An access manager grants assurance planning, review or commissioner sign-off independently. None is included automatically in another role; selecting a person grants nothing.
* Prepare the analytical question, exact evidence and commission. The appointed assurer and commissioner must be distinct and independent of analytical and technique authorship.

## What to do

{% stepper %}
{% step %}

## Plan proportionate assurance

Open the assurance dossier from analysis detail. Record impact, uncertainty, intended decision/use, proportionality and a future UTC validity up to one year.

Select eligible people by exact email. Appointments match the pinned commission where present.

Add 2–12 named activities, with an owner and required evidence for each, including both verification of execution and validation of decision fitness.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Execute distinct activities

Each named owner records specific evidence and rationale using their separate assurance review permission.

A calculation check cannot complete the validation activity by itself.

Complete the independent analytical peer review through the existing analysis workflow.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Review the eight standards

The appointed independent assurer records evidence references and reasoned review for:

* Independent
* Clear
* Comprehensive
* Auditable
* Relevant
* Rigorous
* Objective
* Timely

Empty acknowledgements cannot substitute for evidence; recording every review is not certification.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Resolve findings accountably

An independent assurance reviewer raises a concern with its standard, required remediation, accountable analysis author and mandatory status.

Only the named owner proposes remediation.

The appointed independent assurer accepts evidenced remediation, reopens the finding or records a justified nonmandatory exception.

Exceptions expire within 30 days and within the plan's validity. Mandatory findings cannot be waived.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Issue and sign off separately

After current peer review, all activities, eight evidenced reviews and eligible finding dispositions are complete, the assurer issues a statement with limitations.

The separately appointed commissioner records their own decision with the sign-off permission.

Statement validity is bounded by the plan and earliest exception. Changed content, technique/dissent context or expired exceptions require reassessment.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Attest to the exact product

Open analytical assurance from product detail.

The dossier's independent assurer reviews the final product and records product-specific verification/decision-fitness evidence and permitted-use limitations.

The immutable attachment pins the product content revision/hash and exact signed dossier.

Product authors cannot independently attest to their own product.
{% endstep %}

{% step %}

## Review and release

New review/release of products originating from a reviewed profile or commission requires current analytical readiness and the matching product attachment.

Product amendments need a new attachment. Replacing an attachment makes existing release drafts obsolete; amend and repeat review.

Existing dissemination permissions, recipient checks and approval remain required.
{% endstep %}
{% endstepper %}

## Check the result

* Are verification and customer fitness assessed separately by named activity owners?
* Can an independent reader follow exact references, findings and limitations from the dossier?
* Have mandatory findings been remediated rather than waived?
* Does the attachment describe this final product and its audience?
* Are analysis, challenge context, statement and exceptions still current?

## If you get stuck

<details>

<summary>Why is assurance stale?</summary>

The exact analysis content or independent challenge context changed, a new dossier action invalidated its statement, or validity expired.

Reload, replan where needed, repeat affected checks and issue a fresh statement/sign-off.

Previous approvals are historical and are never silently transferred.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Why can I not select or act as a participant?</summary>

People need current organisation/workspace/handling access and the separate permission for their action.

Commissioners and assurers must be independent of analytical contributors, and a product assurer must also be independent of product authors.

Ask an access manager to review existing grants; the form does not grant them.

</details>

<details>

<summary>Can I export a draft before assurance?</summary>

Yes. Internal draft preparation remains distinct from new release review.

An attached statement appears in PDF, DOCX and JSON with its exact identifiers, evidence and limits; rendering is not release approval.

</details>

<details>

<summary>What happens to older records and released bytes?</summary>

Dossiers retain up to 128 revisions, 12 activities, eight standards, 20 findings and 4 MiB of history.

Products retain up to 40 attachments within their existing storage/audit limits.

Exhaustion fails without deleting history. Older content hashes and released packages are not regenerated when assurance changes or expires.

</details>

<details>

<summary>What if a save fails?</summary>

Keep the draft, check the linked guide and resolve missing evidence, permissions, unsupported choices or expired dates.

A stale version needs deliberate reload/reconciliation.

Clear draft is explicit; drafts are not persisted in browser storage.

</details>

## Responsibility and limits

* Planning, assurance review, commissioner sign-off, analytical peer review and release approval are distinct authorities. Appointments never confer permissions.
* An amendment to the analytical basis requires explicit replanning. Earlier evidence and decisions remain in history, current results clear and all findings reopen.
* For sanitised derivatives, the assurer writes publication-safe product evidence and limits. Exports do not copy the full analytical dossier; existing protected-literal checks still apply.

**Reference and scope:** The reviewed GovS010, AQuA and PHIA requirements inform this workflow. Recorded evidence and professional decisions do not certify truth, grant investigative authority or approve dissemination.

## Related workflows

* [Develop and independently review an assessment](/workflow-guides/analyse/analysis.md)
* [Agree an analytical commission and decision need](/workflow-guides/direction/commissioning.md)
* [Explain confidence, changed judgements and dissent](/workflow-guides/analyse/judgement-context.md)
* [Retain analytical techniques, interpretations and challenge](/workflow-guides/analyse/analytical-techniques.md)
* [Author an intelligence Product and inspect its exports](/workflow-guides/products/product-drafts.md)
* [Review, approve and publish an exact internal release](/workflow-guides/products/release.md)