HCDI Certified Independent Reviewer

Chapter 4. Conflicts, relationships and prior work

general professional knowledge. The approved text states only the three conditions and the attestation. Independence can be compromised in ways the three conditions do not name: a financial relationship with the assessed company or the delivering Firm, earlier advisory work for either, a prospect of follow-on work, or a close personal tie. The three conditions are a floor, not a full account. The professional habit is to declare any relationship that could bear on independence to the party that controls assignment, before accepting an assignment and not afterwards. Under the approved text that party is HCDI Compliance. Whether a particular relationship disqualifies a reviewer is for HCDI to decide, and not for the reviewer.

Evidence Check. Ask whether an informed observer, knowing everything you know, would doubt your independence. If they might, say so.

Prior relationships require disclosure#

Basis - general professional knowledge and editorial explanation. External references are identified explicitly; this section adds no HCDI rule.

Relationships can affect judgement without conscious dishonesty. Identify relevant prior work and interests rather than relying on personal reassurance. General independence concepts do not invent a cooling-off period, financial threshold or undisclosed HCDI eligibility test. Apply only source-evidenced conditions.

Figure 4.4 Prior relationships require disclosure. Original conceptual illustration; arrows organise the discussion and do not establish a validated causal effect or a scoring procedure.

Original exercise L4 E04#

Basis - original fictional exercise. The organisation, events and any numbers are invented for learning. No HCDI result is assigned.

A reviewer previously advised the target and recognises a former colleague in the draft. The reviewer says familiarity will improve efficiency.

Question - What is missing?

Worked answer: Part G, exercise L4 E04.