User Guide
What this document is: A guide for end users reviewing Clawscan outputs.
Why this matters: Ensures that detected risks are interpreted correctly and handled through appropriate internal processes.
When to use this: During day-to-day compliance monitoring and review activities.
Overview
Clawscan identifies communications that may present legal or compliance risks.
Users interact with:
- flagged communications
- risk indicators
- structured explanations
The system supports users in identifying relevant signals but does not replace human judgement.
What users see
Clawscan provides risk signals associated with communications.
These may include:
- a risk classification (e.g. competition law, anti-corruption)
- a numerical risk score
- a reasoning summary explaining the detection
These elements help prioritize which communications should be reviewed.
How to interpret results
Clawscan outputs should be understood as:
- indicators, not conclusions
- prioritisation tools, not decisions
- support for review, not replacement of expertise
A flagged communication does not necessarily indicate a violation.
Review workflow
A typical workflow includes:
- Review the flagged communication
- Assess context and intent
- Determine relevance and risk level
- Escalate if necessary
Organizations should define their own internal processes for handling alerts.
False positives and detection strategy
Clawscan prioritizes early detection.
This means:
- some false positives may occur
- missing a risk is considered more critical than over-flagging
Users should:
- apply judgement during review
- rely on internal expertise
- avoid automated conclusions
Human oversight
Clawscan does not make automated decisions.
Users remain responsible for:
- interpreting signals
- making legal assessments
- deciding on actions
This ensures:
- proportionality
- accountability
- compliance with regulatory expectations
See:
What Clawscan does not do
Clawscan:
- does not evaluate employees
- does not create behavioural profiles
- does not generate individual performance metrics
- does not make disciplinary recommendations
The system is designed to analyze content, not individuals.
Good practices
Organizations are encouraged to:
- define clear review procedures
- ensure appropriate access controls
- provide training to reviewers
- document decisions and actions
Data visibility
Users only access:
- communications flagged for review
- associated risk indicators
Access should be restricted to authorized personnel.
See: