Receipt
Can the material be shown to have reached the organisation before the decision?
A layperson's recording framework
LJBD / REC / 004 · Reusable guide · Updated 1 August 2026
When the decision says
the evidence did not exist
A factual contradiction is most persuasive when receipt, identity, timing and materiality can be demonstrated from the organisation’s own authenticated records.
The pattern
A decision states that no evidence was provided. An authenticated upload record, evidence page, email receipt or inventory shows that the material had already been received. What happened between receipt and decision?
Proof of receipt does not automatically prove consideration, and absence from a written decision does not automatically prove non-consideration. Ask about each link separately: receipt, identity, availability, consideration, conclusion and correction.
Eight integrity tests
Identity
Does a filename, hash, portal record, email header or inventory identify the material?
Availability
Was it accessible to the decision-maker, or trapped elsewhere in the organisation?
Consideration
Does the decision show that the substance was understood and addressed?
Contradiction
Is the disputed statement a factual error, an inference, or a difference in evaluation?
Materiality
Could correcting the point realistically change the decision or the route taken?
Correction
Can the record be amended while preserving proof of the original error?
Propagation
Which later decisions or shared systems copied the incorrect statement?
Evidence architecture
Original material
The unaltered document, recording, image or message as created or received.
Preserve metadata and original format.Transmission proof
Portal audit entry, sent email, delivery confirmation, upload receipt or authenticated evidence list.
Establish date, destination and identity.Decision record
The issued decision, report, minutes, internal note or recorded reasons that contain the disputed statement.
Quote accurately and retain context.Correction trail
The challenge, acknowledgement, review response, amended record and any later use of the original statement.
Never erase the history of the correction.Structured challenge
1
Identify the sentence. Quote the disputed statement and locate it by decision, date and page.
2
State the contradiction. Explain the narrow factual proposition, without adding motive or rhetoric.
3
Prove receipt. Attach the smallest authenticated record that establishes when and where the evidence arrived.
4
Show materiality. Explain why the corrected fact could affect the reasoning, outcome or next procedural step.
5
Ask about a defined remedy. Depending on the process, that might include correction, reconsideration, preservation, disclosure or a reasoned refusal. Check suitability and deadlines with an adviser.
6
Preserve the audit trail. Keep the original decision, challenge and every later version.
Information rights
Different requests answer different questions.
Seeks personal information about the requester, including purposes, sources, sharing, retention and automated decision-making where applicable.
Seeks recorded information held by a public authority, subject to the applicable Scottish or UK regime and exemptions.
Operates within proceedings and depends on the jurisdiction, materiality test and procedural rules.
Challenges inaccurate personal data or a factual statement while preserving the evidence required to show how the error arose.
Primary source register
Core recording principle
Correct the record without destroying the evidence of error.
A silent replacement may fix the current text while making the history impossible to audit. A responsible correction identifies what changed, why it changed, when it changed and which downstream decisions require reconsideration.
Read how this site works ↗