From Analysis to Governance Risk
Governance risk does not arise from a single observation. It emerges when individual findings are viewed together and assessed in the context of the decision as a whole.
What analysis produces
Analysis identifies features of the decision process and record. These may include missing evidence, unclear reasoning, deferred issues, or weak policy engagement.
On their own, individual findings do not automatically amount to risk. They are indicators that require interpretation in context.
Risk forms through combination
Governance risk increases where multiple weaknesses interact. For example, limited evidence may be manageable on its own, but becomes problematic when combined with vague reasons or reliance on future conditions.
It is the relationship between findings, rather than their number, that determines exposure.
Context matters
The same issue can carry different weight depending on the type and stage of the decision being made.
Matters that may be acceptable at an early or technical stage can become decision-critical where an outcome in principle is being determined.
From observation to implication
Moving from analysis to risk involves asking what a finding implies for the integrity of the decision.
This includes considering whether the recorded reasons show that decision-makers were able to understand, weigh, and rely upon the relevant material considerations.
Why cumulative weakness matters
Decisions are rarely exposed because of a single omission. Exposure usually arises where several small weaknesses point in the same direction.
Cumulative weakness can indicate that the decision process lost discipline, even if each individual step appeared reasonable.
Risk is assessed, not assumed
Governance analysis does not assume failure. It evaluates whether the decision record demonstrates a robust and intelligible decision-making process.
Where the record requires assumptions to fill gaps, governance risk increases.