Grading What Happened
Six kinds of thing get called a policy breach. Deciding which before proposing an outcome is the step that keeps responses proportionate.
Consequences of breach
Unenforceable
As written
Breaches of this policy may result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.
What happens
Covers every kind of breach with one sentence, which means it guides nothing.
A misunderstanding and deliberate removal of customer data are described identically.
The operative grading happens in somebody's head, unrecorded, and differs by manager.
The policy says breaches may result in action up to dismissal. That sentence covers six different things and distinguishes none of them.
The response process in “Grading What Happened” needs evidence that can be checked without turning one signal into a conclusion. If this practical implementation page supports 7 minute rule payroll, managers should validate the record with the person involved, preserve the correction history and distinguish an operational exception from deliberate misconduct before any consequential action.
The six
Did not know. The rule exists and was never communicated in any way the person encountered.
For a separate benchmark relevant to “Grading What Happened”, consult the BleepingComputer security coverage. Use it to test purpose, notice, permissions, retention and response procedures against the proposed operating model rather than treating a generic checklist as proof that the rule works.
Misunderstood. They knew of the rule and read it differently, usually reasonably.
Workaround. They knew and did it because the approved route does not work. Most substantiated breaches are this, and it has its own note.
Carelessness. Knew, could have followed it, did not bother.
Personal convenience. Knew, and did it because it suited them.
Deliberate harm. Rare, and the only category where the response in the clause is routinely appropriate.
Why grading explicitly matters
Because the written vocabulary flattens them. Everything is a breach, and an outcome chosen from that framing will be wrong for the first four.
Writing which category, with the reasoning, forces the distinction into the record where somebody can review it.
What distinguishes them
Whether the rule was communicated, which is the organisation's question rather than the person's.
Concealment, which is the most informative single signal and is absent in most cases people assume are deliberate.
Benefit, and whether there is any evidence of it.
Pattern, once against repeatedly.
And what they said when asked, checked rather than weighed.
The first category is the organisation's problem
Where somebody did not know, the finding is about communication rather than conduct.
That is an uncomfortable conclusion and it is frequently the correct one, particularly for rules added after the person joined and never mentioned again.
Writing it down
The category, the evidence for it, and what would have indicated a different category.
A note saying there was no concealment and no benefit is as important as one saying there was. It is the entry most often omitted, because it does not advance the case.
What this prevents
The outcome chosen first and justified afterwards, which is visible in a file to anybody reading carefully and is what an appeal finds.
The first category is yours
Where somebody did not know, the finding is about communication rather than conduct. Uncomfortable, frequently correct, and particularly so for rules added after the person joined and never mentioned again.
Recording the absence of signals
A note saying there was no concealment and no benefit matters as much as one saying there was. It is the entry most often omitted because it does not advance the case.
What grading prevents
The outcome chosen first and justified afterwards, which is visible to anybody reading the file carefully and is what an appeal finds.
Six categories, written down
Did not know, misunderstood, workaround, carelessness, personal convenience, deliberate harm. Only the last routinely warrants what the consequences clause describes.
What distinguishes the categories
Whether the rule was communicated, concealment, benefit, pattern, and what they said when asked — checked rather than weighed. Concealment is the single most informative signal.
Why the flattening matters
Everything is called a breach, so an outcome chosen from that framing is wrong for the first four categories. Writing the grading forces the distinction into a record somebody can review.
Why writing the grading matters
The outcome chosen first and justified afterwards is visible to anybody reading the file carefully, and it is what an appeal finds. Writing the category with its evidence, as a separate step before any outcome is discussed, is the protection.
It also forces the first question: was this rule ever communicated to this person. Where the answer is no, the finding is about the organisation, which is uncomfortable and frequently correct.
Grade before proposing anything. If the grading and the outcome were decided in the same breath, the grading did nothing.