The second step named in the scope. Each report receives a first assessment (triage) whose purpose is to decide how best to follow it up, not whether to follow it up. The assessment considers the nature of what is reported (its type and frequency, whether it has happened or is expected, and the role and seniority of the person said to be involved), whether the same or similar wrongdoing has been reported before, immediate risks to human rights, safety or the environment, any immediate need to secure evidence, whether a criminal offence or another duty to inform the authorities is involved, risks to the organization's operations or reputation, and the risk the whistleblower faces. Possible results are a request for more information, an investigation, protection measures agreed with the whistleblower, notification of the authorities or referral to another procedure. The held definition of triage (3.12) frames the step as assessing the initial report so as to categorize it, take preliminary measures, set its priority and assign it for further handling, weighing how likely and how severe the impact of the wrongdoing is on personnel, the organization and interested parties (harm to reputation, finances, the environment, people or otherwise). It is done by suitably qualified and impartial persons (5.3.2: the system is designed and resourced for comprehensive assessment of reports). The substance comes from the convenor's guidance keyed to 4.3, 7.5, 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 8.4.1 and 8.5 and the UNOPS review of the standard's criteria (triage on scope, next steps and protection needs); the clause text is not held.
The graph holds this control, the 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.