A public knowledge architecture
National Lived Experience Evidence Repository
A way to connect public lived experience evidence across portfolios—so the relationships between issues are easier to see, not just the documents themselves.
What this means
More than a filing cabinet
The national lived experience evidence repository is a public-facing evidence and knowledge architecture: a framework for making published work legible across systems, questions and reform processes.
Rather than asking people to read each portfolio’s evidence in isolation, this approach makes it possible to trace related questions—such as discharge, housing access and support eligibility—through public reports, submissions and research. It is a way of organising and interpreting public knowledge, not a database of individual lives.
NLEC finds what single-system evidence misses when it reads across institutional boundaries. A repository approach supports that reading while preserving the source, scope and limits of each published item.
Start with what is public
Explore the published record
These existing sections are the places to find NLEC’s public material. Each has its own purpose; taken together, they help readers follow an issue from analysis to formal evidence and reform argument.
The organising principle
Keep the connection. Keep the context.
By system and intersection
A question about housing can also be a question about health, disability, justice or income support. Cross-references make these overlaps visible without collapsing distinct areas of expertise.
By type of evidence
A submission, a research analysis and a lived experience account serve different purposes. Clear attribution and context matter when drawing conclusions from any of them.
By the question still unanswered
Good evidence also identifies uncertainty: what needs checking, what is outside the scope of a publication and which institution can answer the next question.
A clear public boundary
This page describes an evidence architecture and points to public material. It does not offer a searchable collection of unpublished records, confidential contributions or personal experiences.
Care with consent, privacy, attribution and the limits of the available evidence is as important as making connections. A public synthesis should never expose an individual’s account simply to make a pattern easier to illustrate.