ACAS process
Structured Lens brief showing how ACAS passages can sit beside selected tribunal decisions without becoming fact-pattern comparables.
Tribuno provides Employment Tribunal research assistance and legal information only. It does not provide legal advice, representation, or guaranteed outcome prediction.
Research question
Synthetic scenario for demonstration: the user wants to inspect grievance investigation and appeal process guidance beside selected ET decisions.
Source trail
The sample shows the level of source visibility a professional user should expect before relying on any generated prose.
Process guidance context
Used to anchor the process question before comparing tribunal decisions.
Check before use
Check the current ACAS source and keep the passage separate from ET comparables.
Implementation context
Used to support a practical checklist for investigation, hearing, and appeal sequence.
Check before use
Confirm whether the guidance passage applies to the process being reviewed.
Fact-pattern comparable
Used to compare how a tribunal reasoned about a similar workplace process.
Check before use
Read the tribunal reasoning before mapping the guidance point to the factual comparison.
Comparison matrix
A sample should show comparison logic, not just a polished paragraph.
| Issue | Sources | What the sample supports | Professional use | Check before use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guidance versus comparable decision | L1S1 | The sample keeps ACAS guidance and ET reasoning side by side but labelled differently. | Helps a user explain the role each source family plays in a memo. | Do not cite ACAS material as if it were a tribunal finding. |
| Appeal process | L2S1 | The guidance source frames process expectations; the ET decision shows how similar facts were reasoned about. | Supports a structured appeal-process review. | Confirm whether the appeal facts and the guidance passage line up. |
| Promotion boundary | L1L2 | Only selected Lens findings should be promoted into memo context and visibly labelled. | Prevents a memo from becoming a loose bundle of guidance snippets. | Promote only passages that actually support the drafted point. |
Memo extract
The sample extract is written as cautious research assistance. It keeps labels close to the claim they support.
The sample Lens brief would identify ACAS process guidance and then test whether selected tribunal decisions show similar or distinguishable facts. The source-family labels remain visible throughout the extract.
A memo should promote only the passages needed for the specific research question and should explain whether a cited point comes from guidance context or tribunal reasoning.
Review checks
The sample is useful only if it makes the user's source-checking work clearer.
Use Lens labels for guidance and `S` labels for ET decisions.
Procedure and workplace guidance can change and must be checked before use.
Promote only selected passages into memo context.
Important limits
It does not advise on a real matter, predict an outcome, estimate an award, or replace source checking and professional judgement.
The public labels demonstrate source-family separation and are not live citations to ACAS or tribunal sources.
ACAS material should be checked as workplace-practice context and kept separate from fact-pattern comparables.
A real report should verify the latest ACAS wording, source date and relevance to the process being reviewed.
Use the sample as workflow proof only, not as legal advice or process certification.
Workspace access is available by request. Start with sample or synthetic matters where possible.
