Proposed framework · Being developed
National System Failure Register
A proposed approach to documenting and analysing recurring failures between public systems—not a live list of cases or a finding about any named institution.
Status and scope
A framework, not a live register
NLEC is developing a way to describe, compare and analyse patterns of failure that can disappear between separate institutional records.
This page explains the intended logic of that work. It does not display registered cases, provide a searchable case database or suggest that a pattern has already been established by the framework. A separate private intake accepts limited written accounts for staff review only; submissions are unverified and do not become public findings.
The purpose would be to make cross-system questions more precise: what failed at the boundary, what evidence supports that description, what remains uncertain and which bodies are positioned to respond.
How the approach could work
From individual observations to accountable analysis
NLEC finds what single-system evidence misses by examining the connections between decisions. A useful framework must also protect against the opposite mistake: turning a compelling account into an untested general claim.
- 01 / 04
Describe the boundary
Identify the systems involved, the point of transition or interaction and the decision or handover that needs examination. A category should describe a mechanism, not label a person.
- 02 / 04
Assess the evidence
Distinguish accounts, documents, institutional responses and independent analysis. Note what is known, what is disputed and what still needs to be tested before a pattern is stated publicly.
- 03 / 04
Look for recurrence
Ask whether a similar mechanism appears in different settings, portfolios or places. Repetition can suggest a systemic question; it does not by itself establish cause or responsibility.
- 04 / 04
Trace the response
Identify which institutions could act, what reform is proposed and how a public account of progress might be maintained. Accountability needs more than recording that a problem was raised.
Conditions for credibility
Evidence must not outpace care
Any future public reporting would need clear standards for consent, privacy, attribution and evidence quality. It should separate an illustrative scenario from a documented event, a reported experience from a verified fact, and an emerging question from a supported conclusion.
People affected by system failures should not be made responsible for proving an entire institutional pattern on their own. Nor should an analytical framework take over the role of complaints bodies, regulators, specialist peaks or statutory investigations.
A framework is useful only if it helps institutions recognise responsibility across portfolios—and makes room for correction when new evidence changes the analysis.