Name the claim
Write one sentence or number in a report that a client could reasonably question.
GOOD SIGNALThe statement is specific enough to be true or false—not a vague reporting theme.REPORT DIAGNOSTIC STARTER KIT
Before you send more data, test the claim.
Use five questions to decide whether one client-report metric needs a controlled proof path—or whether an existing report, portal, or filtered export already gives the reader the right answer.
No-data preparation tool. Do not paste client names, credentials, report files, source rows, PHI/ePHI, or sensitive production information into the public site.
FIT CHECK
Start with one report your client already understands.
This kit is not an assessment score and does not certify security or compliance. It helps a report owner decide whether a real question is specific enough to test.
01A recurring QBR, monthly service report, security report, or board-style update already exists.
02A client, prospect, executive, or insurer has asked how a selected metric was determined.
03The current answer becomes a spreadsheet, screenshot, wider portal access, or manual data chase.
04A reviewed structured source can support the selected claim.
05A report owner and reviewer can decide what the intended reader should receive.
FIVE-QUESTION WORKSHEET
Write the answer on your side of the boundary.
Use an approved or redacted example internally. The purpose is to determine whether a client needs a selected proof path—not to turn every report into a data room.
Name the reviewed source
Identify the approved structured source or mapping that gives the claim meaning.
GOOD SIGNALA reviewer can point to a controlled source, not only a visual chart.Set the smallest useful scope
Describe the minimum detail the reader needs to evaluate this one claim.
GOOD SIGNALThe answer is narrower than a full spreadsheet, unrestricted export, or generic portal account.Name the reader and decision
State who should inspect the evidence, what they need to decide, and when access should end.
GOOD SIGNALThe delivery condition is intentional; forwarding is not blanket authorization.Name the reviewer
Identify the role accountable for approving the claim, scope, and client-facing proof path.
GOOD SIGNALSomeone owns the publication decision before detail reaches a reader.READ THE RESULT HONESTLY
A narrow answer is not always the right answer.
If the claim is vague, fix the report before adding an evidence path. If the source is not reviewed and structured, do not pretend a visual chart becomes defensible proof. If the reader needs broad ongoing self-service, use the portal or reporting system designed for that job.
RipoDoc becomes relevant only when the report is already doing its executive job while one selected claim needs a bounded, reviewable answer for a deliberate reader.