Sample Verify Report, Carruthers

This is a complete Verify report, reproduced in full, so you can see exactly what a commissioning organisation receives.
One of three sample reports. This one reaches REVIEW.

Integri Verify  |  Illustrative sample  |  INTEGRI-VFY-2026-0002  |  v1.0 FINAL, approved 23 August 2026
Illustrative sample, fictional subject

This sample is provided solely to demonstrate the structure and assessment treatment of a Verify report. It does not concern a real commission and must not be presented as evidence of an assessment carried out for an actual person or organisation.

Verify Reputational Due Diligence Report
Report referenceINTEGRI-VFY-2026-0002
Report version1.0
Assessment date14 May 2026
Assessment period15 May 2021 to 14 May 2026
Commissioning organisationDummore and Ashouse constituency association
SubjectJames Carruthers
Role or appointmentProspective parliamentary candidate, Dummore and Ashouse constituency
Agreed scopePublicly accessible material relevant to selection as a parliamentary candidate
Report reliance period12 August 2026, being 90 days after issue, in accordance with Terms section 3
Overall conclusionREVIEW

1. Executive summary

This report assesses publicly accessible material relating to James Carruthers within the agreed scope and the assessment period of 15 May 2021 to 14 May 2026. Four findings are recorded.

No finding is classified HIGH. Three findings are classified MEDIUM: an innuendo construction implying improper conduct by a named council officer; two instances of statistics presented so as to create a misleading impression; and a post on a nationally contested public policy question that generated formal complaints and press coverage. A fourth finding, classified LOW, is recorded for context.

The overall conclusion is REVIEW.

RefFindingSignificance
F01Innuendo construction implying improper conduct by a named council officerMEDIUM
F02Statistics presented so as to create a misleading impression, two instancesMEDIUM
F03Post on a nationally contested public policy question that generated complaints and press coverageMEDIUM
F04Personal tone in a post about a local councillorLOW

2. Scope and assessment basis

Commission scope. The commission was to assess publicly accessible material bearing on the subject's exposure to scrutiny as a prospective parliamentary candidate for the Dummore and Ashouse constituency. The subject is a chartered surveyor and a former district councillor, and material from that period falls within scope where it is relevant to the role sought.

Assessment period. The standard assessment period applies: the five years ending on the assessment date, being 15 May 2021 to 14 May 2026. No extension was agreed and none was required. Material outside that period was not routinely searched for or assessed merely because it may be discoverable.

Source boundary. The assessment considered publicly accessible material within the agreed scope and assessment period, including relevant social media, press and news sources, public records and publicly available official material. Private, restricted or credential protected sources were not accessed.

Third party approaches. Verify does not involve contacting third parties to obtain information about the person assessed.

Assessment basis. Each reportable finding is assessed for material relevance to the agreed role and scope. Where a relevant external governance or legal framework genuinely applies, it is identified. The absence of an external framework reference does not by itself exclude a finding where the report states a clear role specific assessment basis.

3. Findings

F01 Innuendo construction implying improper conduct by a named council officer
SignificanceMEDIUM
SourceSubject's public account on X
Date of material19 September 2023

Finding. On 19 September 2023 the subject published a post on X stating: 'Interesting to note who the planning officer recommended approval for on the Grenville Street application. Some people might wonder why. Make of that what you will.' The post attracted 47 replies, a number of which made explicit allegations of improper conduct against the officer.

Assessment. The post makes no direct allegation, but its construction invites the reader to infer improper conduct by an identifiable officer, and the replies show that readers drew that inference. An officer named in this way has limited means of public reply. The material is relevant because it concerns the subject's treatment of public servants while holding local office.

Assessment basis. LGA Model Code of Conduct, respect for officers. The Seven Principles of Public Life, honesty.

F02 Statistics presented so as to create a misleading impression, two instances
SignificanceMEDIUM
SourceSubject's public Facebook page
Date of materialMarch 2022 and November 2023

Finding. Two posts have been identified in which the subject presented statistics in a manner that created a misleading impression. In March 2022, waiting time figures were cited accurately in isolation but without comparative national data. In November 2023, local crime statistics were cited using a baseline period that presented a more favourable trend than the longer term data supported.

Assessment. In each case the underlying figures are accurate. The issue is selection and framing rather than fabrication, which is why the finding is classified MEDIUM rather than higher. The relevance to the role is the accuracy of public claims made by a person seeking election to a legislature.

Assessment basis. The Seven Principles of Public Life, honesty. Role specific relevance: accuracy of public claims.

F03 Post on a nationally contested public policy question that generated complaints and press coverage
SignificanceMEDIUM
SourceSubject's public account on X, together with regional press reporting and the district council's public complaint record
Date of material14 November 2023

Finding. On 14 November 2023 the subject published a post expressing a strong personal view on a nationally contested public policy question. The post generated 312 replies and was reported in the Dummore Herald on 17 November 2023. Four formal complaints were made to the district council's monitoring officer, of which three were not upheld and one resulted in informal advice being given.

Assessment. The assessment concerns the governance and reputational consequences of the material, not the merits of the policy question, on which Integri takes no position. Holding and expressing a view on a contested public question is unexceptional for a candidate. The finding rests on the documented consequences: press coverage, a formal complaint record, and informal advice given by a monitoring officer. The existence of that complaint record is a matter the commissioning organisation is likely to want to understand before it proceeds.

Assessment basis. Role specific relevance: documented complaint record and informal advice given by a monitoring officer, and associated press coverage. No external framework reference is claimed for the substance of the view expressed.

F04 Personal tone in a post about a local councillor
SignificanceLOW
SourceSubject's public Facebook page
Date of material3 April 2024

Finding. On 3 April 2024 the subject published a post stating that a local councillor's comments were 'exactly what you'd expect from someone who has never run a business, never paid a proper wage, and has no idea what the real world looks like.'

Assessment. The material sits within the bounds of legitimate political debate. It is recorded for context because the register is below that expected of a parliamentary candidate. It does not by itself indicate substantial governance or reputational risk and no action follows from it.

Assessment basis. Role specific relevance only. No external framework applies.

4. Overall conclusion

REVIEW

One or more material findings require client consideration, clarification or contextual judgement before the organisation proceeds with its own decision. No finding is classified HIGH.

The three MEDIUM findings are capable of being addressed through discussion with the subject. This report makes no recommendation for or against selection.

5. Client considerations and next steps

The following are proportionate steps available to the commissioning organisation. Each is tied to an identified finding. They are matters for the organisation to consider before it proceeds with its own decision.

FindingConsiderationOwner
F01, F02 and F03Discuss the identified findings with the subject at the candidates committee meeting.Candidates committee
F03Invite the subject to confirm the nature of the informal advice given by the district council's monitoring officer.Candidates committee
F02Document the organisation's own reasoning on how the findings have been taken into account.Candidates committee

6. Source schedule

RefSourcePublic dateAccessedUsed for
S01Subject's public account on X19 September 202314 May 2026F01
S02Subject's public Facebook pageMarch 2022 and November 202314 May 2026F02
S03Subject's public account on X14 November 202314 May 2026F03
S04Dummore Herald, regional press report17 November 202314 May 2026F03
S05Ashouse District Council monitoring officer complaint recordPublic record14 May 2026F03
S06Subject's public Facebook page3 April 202414 May 2026F04

7. Advisory and liability notice

This report is an advisory reputational due diligence assessment of publicly accessible material within the agreed scope and assessment period. It does not constitute legal advice, a judicial or regulatory finding of fact, a compliance certification, a determination of suitability or fitness, or a recommendation for or against selection, appointment, disciplinary action or removal. The commissioning organisation retains responsibility for its own due diligence, human judgement and final decision, and must not rely on this report as the sole basis for that decision.

This report is issued subject to the Integri Terms of Service, including the liability provisions at clause 8. Nothing in this report excludes or limits any liability that cannot lawfully be excluded or limited.

8. Authorisation

Issued14 May 2026
Report referenceINTEGRI-VFY-2026-0002
Report version1.0
Authorised byIntegri Limited
StatusIssued Verify report

This report has been prepared by Integri Limited on a politically neutral basis.

Integri Limited  |  124 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX  |  ICO Registered ZC029967  |  Illustrative sample, fictional subject

Enquire about VerifyReturn to Verify