Can we explain who the statistics are for, what decisions they support and where misunderstanding or misuse is most likely to arise?
Have we used proportionate safeguards, such as clear definitions, caveats, uncertainty, user-focused explanation, communications testing or monitoring?
Have we engaged users, intermediaries or affected publics where their insight could help identify likely misunderstandings before publication?
Have we agreed who is responsible for monitoring, correction, escalation, external engagement and post-release review?
After publication
Have we recorded what happened, what changed, what could not change and why?
Did our response help users understand or use the statistics more accurately?
Do future statistics, communications or governance arrangements need to change?
Can we show how feedback, challenge or evidence of misuse has informed improvement?
