Example Governed Decision Record, Safeguarding
Companion artefact
This is a concrete example of a Governed Decision Record as produced by OMEGA, in a safeguarding context. It shows how a real-world decision is captured in a form that can be inspected, challenged, and audited.
This example is intentionally distinct from the clinical, engineering, and financial examples to demonstrate cross-domain consistency of the underlying record structure.
This is a stylised example. It is structurally accurate but not authoritative safeguarding guidance. It does not represent any specific school, pupil, or platform.
GOVERNED DECISION RECORD
Record ID: omega-record/2026-05-06/school-safeguarding-0124
Schema Version: omega/1.0
Domain: education.safeguarding.escalation
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
CONTEXT
A Year 9 pupil (age 14) at a secondary school
in England has shown a pattern of observable
behavioural changes over the past three weeks:
declining attendance, reluctance to remove a
hooded jumper indoors, two unexplained absences,
and what appeared to be a faded mark on the
forearm observed by a PE teacher on 28 April.
The Designated Safeguarding Lead (DSL) has
received concerns from three staff members across
this period. The pupil has not made a disclosure.
The pupil's home situation is known to include
a recent change in family circumstances (parental
separation, December 2025) but no prior
safeguarding referrals.
The DSL and deputy DSL reviewed the school's
safeguarding chronology in CPOMS at 13:40. The
pastoral lead confirmed availability for daily
check-ins before the decision was committed.
The DSL must decide on next steps:
continue internal monitoring, request a meeting
with parents, make a referral to children's
social services (Single Point of Access), or
consult with the local authority safeguarding
team without formal referral.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
DECISION
Consult with local authority safeguarding team
(early help threshold conversation), without
making a formal referral at this stage. Continue
structured internal monitoring with daily
check-ins by named pastoral lead.
Decision time: 14:15
Decision date: 6 May 2026
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
REASONING
The pattern of concerns is significant but does
not currently meet the threshold for statutory
referral under Section 17 (child in need) or
Section 47 (significant harm) of the Children
Act 1989, applying Working Together to Safeguard
Children 2023 guidance.
The decision was reached by considering:
1. The cumulative pattern (multiple staff
concerns over three weeks) suggests
something is happening but does not specify
what
2. No disclosure has been made by the pupil
3. The faded mark observation is uncorroborated
and may have innocent explanation
4. The pupil's recent family change is
contextually significant but not itself
a safeguarding concern
5. Premature formal referral may damage the
pupil's trust in school staff and reduce
likelihood of future disclosure
Continued internal monitoring alone was rejected:
the pattern has continued for three weeks
without resolution, and additional staff
escalation indicates internal monitoring is
insufficient.
Direct meeting with parents was rejected: if
the home environment is the source of harm, a
parental meeting could increase risk to the
pupil. If it is not, the meeting can occur
later with safeguarding team input on framing.
Formal SPA referral was rejected: the threshold
for statutory intervention has not been met,
and consultation with the local authority team
is the appropriate proportionate step.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
EVIDENCE AND ASSUMPTIONS
Evidence used:
- Three staff concern records (15 April,
23 April, 28 April)
- CPOMS chronology reviewed by DSL and deputy
DSL before decision
- Attendance data (drop from 96% to 71% over
three weeks)
- Pastoral notes from form tutor
- Brief observation by school nurse on 1 May
(pupil declined detailed conversation)
- Pastoral lead availability confirmed for
daily check-ins during monitoring period
- Family context known to school (parental
separation December 2025)
Assumptions explicitly recorded:
- The faded mark observed by PE teacher may
or may not indicate non-accidental injury;
no clinical assessment available
- The pupil's reluctance to remove outer
clothing may have multiple explanations;
not assumed to indicate concealment
- Family circumstances are known but the
home environment has not been assessed
- The pupil's lack of disclosure does not
rule out concerns; absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
AUTHORITY
Decision authorised by: [DSL Name],
Designated Safeguarding Lead, [School Name]
Authority basis: Statutory DSL role under
Keeping Children Safe in Education 2024,
operating within the school's safeguarding
policy and Working Together to Safeguard
Children 2023.
Consultation obtained:
- Headteacher informed (14:00, prior to
decision)
- Local authority safeguarding consultation
line called (14:30, post-decision; advice
aligned with chosen approach)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
CONSTRAINTS CHECKED
The following were evaluated before the
decision was committed:
✓ Threshold assessment completed against
Section 17 and Section 47 criteria
✓ Consultation with safeguarding team
available and pursued
✓ Pupil's voice considered (no disclosure
made, but pastoral relationship maintained)
✓ Information sharing complies with GDPR
and Working Together guidance
✓ Record-keeping requirements met (CPOMS
or equivalent)
✓ Continued monitoring plan defined and
resourced
⚠ Time pressure: any escalation in observed
concerns triggers immediate threshold
re-assessment, regardless of monitoring
schedule
⚠ Specific reassessment triggers defined:
new physical mark, missed check-in, further
unexplained absence, direct or indirect
disclosure, parental pressure on the pupil,
or staff concern indicating immediate risk
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
DISPUTES
One disagreement was recorded during this
decision.
The PE teacher who observed the faded mark on
28 April expressed concern that consultation-
without-referral may underweight the
possibility of physical harm. The teacher
preferred immediate SPA referral.
The query was considered: a single
uncorroborated observation, without disclosure
or further physical evidence, does not meet
the statutory threshold for formal referral.
The local authority consultation route allows
expert input on whether threshold has been
met without committing to a process that may
not be proportionate.
Resolution: consultation route proceeded.
PE teacher's concern recorded. Threshold
re-assessment scheduled for 13 May or
immediately on any further observation.
Head of Year query about an immediate attendance
meeting with parents was deferred until after
local authority advice, because parental contact
was itself part of the risk assessment.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
CONSENT
Consent and information sharing:
- Consultation with local authority does
not require parental consent (operates
under statutory framework)
- Internal information sharing limited to
staff with safeguarding role
- No information shared externally with
parents at this stage (would be
inappropriate given current uncertainty
about home environment)
Pupil's voice:
- Pupil has not been formally interviewed
- Pastoral conversations have offered space
for disclosure without pressure
- Pupil's dignity and emerging autonomy
considered in decision not to escalate
prematurely
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
HARM TRACE
Anticipated harm chains evaluated:
If consultation proceeds with monitoring
(chosen path):
- Risk: if harm is occurring, monitoring
period (up to 1 week) may extend exposure
- Mitigation: daily pastoral check-in,
immediate threshold re-assessment on any
new evidence
- Residual risk: low to moderate
If immediate SPA referral (rejected path):
- Risk: formal referral without threshold
being met may damage school-pupil trust
- Risk: parental notification of referral
could escalate risk if home environment
is the source
- Risk: family-led intervention without
pupil consent could reduce future
disclosure willingness
- Residual risk: moderate
If continued internal monitoring only
(rejected path):
- Risk: failure to escalate when pattern
suggests escalation is needed
- Risk: missed expert input on threshold
judgment
- Residual risk: moderate to high
If parental meeting (rejected path):
- Risk: if home is source of harm, meeting
increases risk to pupil
- Residual risk: high if home environment
contributes
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
OUTCOME
Recorded at 13 May 2026 (one week post-decision):
Local authority consultation completed 7 May.
Brief delay (next-day callback rather than
same-day) due to service demand.
Consultation advice: maintain monitoring, no
statutory threshold met, consider early help
assessment if pattern continues.
During monitoring period:
- Pupil attendance improved (71% to 89%)
- Pupil engaged in pastoral conversation
on 9 May, mentioning peer relationship
difficulties (not disclosed earlier)
- No new physical concerns observed
- PE teacher's faded mark observation
not repeated
- No reassessment trigger was met
Decision at 13 May: continue monitoring at
reduced intensity, offer pupil pastoral
support targeting peer relationships, no
escalation. Threshold re-assessment scheduled
for 27 May.
The decision is closed with outcome COMMITTED.
Re-assessment scheduled. No retrospective
review flagged.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════
PROVENANCE
Content hash:
sha256:9c4e7f2a8b1c5d9e3f6a7b4c8d2e1f5a9b3c6d4e7f2a8b1c5d9e3f6a7b4c8d2e1f5a9b3c6d4e7f2a8b1c
Previous record hash:
sha256:6e1f9a3c5b8d4e2f7a1c9b3d6e8f4a2c5b1d7e9f4b8d2e1f7a5c9b3d6e4f8a2c1b9d5e3f7a4c8b2d6e1f
(preceding record in school safeguarding chain)
Schema validation: passed (omega-contracts v0.2.2)
Cryptographic seal: valid
Composition: substrate_native_records →
omega_records (canonical envelope)
The substrate paper describing the underlying architecture is available at /substrate/.