Submit a public-interest question for structured evidence review.
Observed can assess whether a concern, improvement story or strong-practice example fits the public evidence model, has clear public-interest relevance and has enough lawful source material to justify an evidence check or deeper benchmark analysis.
Observed is not only a complaint pathway, and it is not a legal service or allegation platform.
This page is for requesting an initial fit assessment. Observed reviews whether the matter belongs within the public-interest research model before deciding whether further work is appropriate. Requests can relate to possible concern signals, improvement signals or strong-practice signals.
Organisational focus
The matter should relate to organisational behaviour, governance, culture, public claims, stakeholder treatment, public funding, public-interest accountability or demonstrable strong practice.
Public-interest relevance
The matter should affect more than a private disagreement. It should raise a question relevant to workers, communities, funders, boards, regulators or the public, including where strong practice may deserve evidence-based visibility.
Public evidence pathway
Observed works from public sources. The request should identify existing public material or explain where lawful public records may be available to support concern, improvement or positive-practice analysis.
What Observed may assess.
Observed may assess concerns, improvement stories and strong-practice examples where public signals can be compared with academic research, recognised good-practice standards or public accountability expectations.
Some requests will be declined or referred elsewhere.
Observed applies screening before any analysis begins. The purpose is to protect the integrity of the work and avoid misuse of the platform.
Requests are more likely to fit when they include
- A named organisation or clearly defined sector issue.
- A public-interest reason for review, whether concern-based, improvement-based or recognition-based.
- Links to public sources or a clear path to lawful public records.
- An organisational pattern, not only an individual dispute or unsupported opinion.
- A willingness to let the methodology determine the outcome, including findings that may be mixed, neutral or positive.
Requests are unlikely to proceed when they involve
- Revenge, harassment, personal targeting or bad-faith motive.
- Private, hacked, leaked or unlawfully obtained material.
- Requests to name or pursue natural persons.
- No public-interest basis beyond a private dispute, unsupported praise claim or reputational promotion request.
- A matter better suited to a regulator, lawyer, union, safety pathway or complaints process.
Submitting a request does not mean the matter has been accepted or that the conclusion is known.
The first stage is an Initial Question and Fit Assessment. The possible outcomes include proceed, hold, decline, refer elsewhere, add to watchlist, recognise strong practice, or consider for future sector-level research.
Named-organisation findings are suppressed unless signals are drawn from enough independent source types. Multiple anonymous reviews alone do not meet the threshold, regardless of volume.
A staged process, with clear stop points.
Observed does not move directly from submission to analysis or publication. Each stage tests whether the matter should continue and whether the evidence supports concern, improvement, strong practice or no finding.
Provide enough information for an initial fit assessment.
Use this form to provide the information Observed needs for an initial screening review. Submission does not mean the matter has been accepted for analysis, recognition or publication.
Do not submit private, unlawful, hacked, leaked or highly sensitive personal material.
Request analysis
This form is for initial assessment only. Public links, public records, article references, public reports and general context are appropriate, including material that may show concern, improvement or strong practice.
The safeguards apply before any work proceeds.
Request Analysis is governed by the same legal, ethical and methodological boundaries as the rest of the Observed model. The same standard applies whether the request seeks to identify risk, improvement or strong practice.
No legal advice
Observed does not provide legal advice, legal representation or findings of legal wrongdoing.
No private investigation
Observed does not use surveillance, impersonation, private databases or covert evidence gathering.
No unsupported praise
Observed does not publish promotional endorsements. Strong practice is only recognised where public evidence and benchmark alignment support it.
No guaranteed publication
Publication or positive recognition depends on evidence thresholds, right of response, legal review triggers and human sign-off.
Right of response
Named organisations receive a fair opportunity to respond before named findings are published where required.
Correction process
Published work can be clarified, corrected, updated or withdrawn where new evidence requires it.
Conflict checks
Potential conflicts are assessed before work proceeds beyond the initial screening stage.
Some matters may need another pathway first.
Workplace bullying or employment issues may need an employment, mediation, union or safety pathway. Employment New Zealand provides guidance on bullying at work, WorkSafe provides guidance on psychosocial risk, and privacy concerns should be considered against the Privacy Act principles.
These links are public reference points. They do not replace legal, employment, safety, union or regulatory advice.
Review the model before submitting a question.
The methodology, legal boundaries and research process explain how Observed decides whether a matter can proceed and what type of finding the public evidence can support.