Chapter 9 — Communication, ethics and reporting
Lesson map
Lesson 09 published. Map, example, EX041.
flowchart TD
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["9.1 Reports for decision-makers"]
N2["9.2 Ethics with sensitive findings"]
N3["9.3 Communicating with donors"]
N4["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4
N4 --> EX["Worked example"]
EX --> Q["Exercise EX041"]
Logical drawing
flowchart LR
N0["Learning outcomes"]
N1["9.1 Reports for decision-makers"]
N2["9.2 Ethics with sensitive findings"]
N3["9.3 Communicating with donors"]
N4["Synthesis"]
N0 --> N1 --> N2 --> N3 --> N4 --> Q["EX041"]
[Learning outcomes]
|
v
[9.1 Reports for decision-makers]
|
v
[9.2 Ethics with sensitive findings]
|
v
[9.3 Communicating with donors]
|
v
[Synthesis]
|
v
[Worked example] --> [Exercise EX041]
Learning outcomes
You will (1) write clear reports for decision-makers; (2) handle sensitive findings ethically; (3) communicate with donors appropriately.
9.1 Reports for decision-makers
Marcus writes his review report for the director and trustees. It opens with a one-page summary: what was reviewed, three key findings, actions taken and remaining risks, in plain language. Details and evidence follow in appendices. Each finding states its impact on the charity, not just its technical nature. He avoids jargon and explains essential terms once. Trustees tell him it is the first technical report they have read fully. Reports succeed when decision-makers understand them well enough to act and to explain their decisions to others.
9.2 Ethics with sensitive findings
The departed signer finding could embarrass the former officer and the finance team. Marcus presents it factually, as a process gap in leaver procedures rather than anyone's fault, and does not speculate about intentions. He shares the report only with people who need it. He also reports honestly that the review did not cover the exchange's controls, so trustees do not assume more assurance than was provided. Ethical reporting is accurate, fair to individuals and clear about its own limits, even when that is uncomfortable.
9.3 Communicating with donors
Trustees ask whether to tell donors about the review. Marcus suggests a short, accurate statement in the annual report: the charity reviewed how it safeguards cryptoasset donations, strengthened its controls and will review them yearly. He advises against detailed technical disclosure that could help someone target the charity and against overstating security with phrases like fully secure. Clear, honest communication maintains donor trust. The director approves the statement, and Marcus files the decision with the report for future reference by trustees.
Worked example
Marcus's report opens with a one-page plain summary, presents the departed signer as a leaver-process gap and proposes a modest donor statement.
Synthetic case. The report and communications are synthetic.
Errors and limits
Claiming a charity is fully secure overstates assurance and invites misplaced trust.
Exercises
- EX041 — Summary content. What does the one-page summary contain? Rubric: 3 = scope, three findings, actions and remaining risks;; 2 = key findings;; 1 = all evidence;; 0 = none.
- EX042 — Fair framing. How is the departed signer finding framed? Rubric: 3 = as a leaver process gap, not a person's fault;; 2 = process gap;; 1 = blame;; 0 = none.
- EX043 — Stated limit. What limit does the report state? Rubric: 3 = the exchange's controls were not covered;; 2 = exchange not reviewed;; 1 = vague;; 0 = none.
- EX044 — Donor statement. What does Marcus suggest telling donors? Rubric: 3 = controls were reviewed, strengthened and will be reviewed yearly;; 2 = short statement;; 1 = full technical detail;; 0 = none.
- EX045 — Phrase to avoid. Which kind of phrase does he advise against? Rubric: 3 = fully secure;; 2 = overstatement;; 1 = thank you;; 0 = none.
Synthesis
Clear, fair and honest reporting serves trustees, staff and donors.
Continue studying — chapter 09 of 12
← Chapter 08 (draft) · Course chapter index · Chapter 10 (draft) →