The platform
How information becomes a reviewable signal.
Climate Probity reads across many kinds of record, organizes what they contain, and presents a signal in a form a person can review and trace. The analytical methods sit behind that surface and are not described here.
The analytical journey
From scattered records to a signal with its evidence attached.
01
ConnectBring records from different sources into a common, comparable form.02
ResolveRecognize when records refer to the same project, entity, or counterparty.03
SurfaceDirect attention to gaps, inconsistencies, and documented relationships.04
ReviewA qualified person assesses significance, sufficiency, and proportionality.05
Publish or reportAn output carrying its sources, limits, response, and version history.
Stages 1 to 3 organize and surface information. They do not reach conclusions. The judgment happens at stage 4, with a person, and nothing is published or reported without it.
How Climate Probity helps
Three roles, built on the same chain of evidence.
01 · Public transparency
Make public-interest conclusions traceable and testable.
Public-interest findings are presented with the conclusion, its source basis, its limits, the response received, and the correction history together. A reader can examine the records a conclusion rests on.
Public-interest findings · source-linked records · responses · corrections · methodology notes02 · Institutional decision support
Help institutions focus review where it is most useful.
For institutions with oversight or assurance responsibilities, portfolio and project views help decide where to look first. Material-change alerts and counterparty context support due diligence, without replacing the institution's own judgment.
Portfolio monitoring · project prioritization · material-change alerts · counterparty context03 · Expert review and safeguards
Keep consequential judgments under qualified human control.
Evidence review, relationship analysis, proportionality, procedural fairness, and quality control sit above the other two roles. This is where significance is judged and the language of any output is set against the strength of the evidence.
Evidence review · proportionality · procedural fairness · quality control · publication governance
More illustrative views
Counterparty context and evidence trace.
These synthetic examples extend the portfolio view shown on the home page. They illustrate the intended outputs, not the methods that produce them.
Illustrative prototype · synthetic dataCounterparty context
Documented relationships only
Illustrative Entity, Ltd.
Implementing counterparty · appears on three projects
Recorded relationships
Shared director with Entity BRegistry filing
Same named individual listed as director on both records.Common registered addressRegistry filing
Address matches a separate bidder on an unrelated award.
What this shows
Relationships documented in the source records, gathered against a single counterparty with each link tied to its filing.
What a reviewer does next
Decide whether the shared director and address reflect a disclosed group structure or an undisclosed conflict worth a closer look.
What it does not establish
A recorded relationship is not evidence of collusion or wrongdoing. Shared directors and addresses are common and often entirely proper.
Illustrative prototype · synthetic dataFrom a public concern back to its source
Every step is traceable
Step 1 · Source records
Approved methodology and the independent verification reportPrimary documents, each with an identifier and an applicable reporting period.Step 2 · Factual proposition
The two records apply different reporting periodsA statement traceable to the identified documents. It describes the records, nothing more.Step 3 · Expert review
A reviewer assesses significance and proportionalityIs the difference material to the reported result? Has the entity had an opportunity to respond?Step 4 · Published output
A review question with its sources and limits attachedCarries the response received and a version history. It is not a finding of misconduct.
Where the line is
What the platform does not do.
—It does not establish intent, causation, culpability, motive, or guilt. Those are matters for formal investigation and adjudication.
—It does not replace audit, investigation, adjudication, or institutional oversight. It is an analytical layer that helps the people doing that work decide what merits a closer look.
—It does not treat a score, a correlation, or an association as proof. A documented relationship is a reason to ask a question, not an answer to it.