Robodebt Failed Because Income Averages Were Treated as Proof of Debt
Robodebt shows what happens when the wrong data points are used to make serious decisions, human review is weakened, and a system turns income estimates into d…
Process Failure Case Studies
Real-world breakdowns of data misuse, weak QA, document governance failures, broken evidence trails and process failures.
Use this hub when you want concrete examples of what can happen when important information is collected, processed, published or used without enough workflow control, source traceability, QA or human review.
Featured
Start with these articles
These pieces are the strongest entry points for this hub.
Articles
All process failure case studies
Search within this hub. The results below only include articles assigned to this topic.
Filter by type
Cambridge English IELTS marking error: what the £875,000 Ofqual fine shows about weak data workflows
What the Cambridge English IELTS marking error and £875,000 Ofqual fine show about weak data workflows, traceability, monitoring and human review.
Cambridge OCR physics exam errors: what the £270,000 Ofqual fine shows about weak QA workflows
What the Cambridge OCR physics exam errors and £270,000 Ofqual fine show about weak QA workflows, source data checks, mark schemes and review control.
ManageMyHealth data breach: what health document leaks show about weak data governance
What the ManageMyHealth data breach shows about document governance, sensitive records, access control, retention rules, audit trails and AI-ready source contr…
Pearson fined £2m by Ofqual: what repeated exam failures show about weak process control
What Pearson’s Ofqual fine shows about repeated assessment failures, weak process control, risk signals, escalation, monitoring and traceability.
The Post Office data breach shows why document publishing needs a QA workflow
What the Post Office data breach shows about document publishing QA, redaction, version control, sensitivity checks and controlled public release workflows.
Robodebt Failed Because Income Averages Were Treated as Proof of Debt
Robodebt shows what happens when the wrong data points are used to make serious decisions, human review is weakened, and a system turns income estimates into d…
South Africa’s AI Policy Failed Because the Evidence Trail Broke
South Africa’s withdrawn AI policy shows why evidence-heavy public work needs source traceability, citation checking, human review, and controlled AI workflows.
Calculators
Check whether the same risks exist in your workflow
These calculators help test whether source traceability, reporting bottlenecks or slow review processes may be creating avoidable risk in your own work.
Services
How the services connect to this topic
Each hub can connect to all three services, but the right starting point depends on where the workflow is breaking.
Data Collection & Intake Systems
For teams that want to reduce risk at the point where information first enters the workflow.
View serviceTraceable Evidence Workflow Support
For teams that need a clearer evidence trail before findings, recommendations, summaries or decisions are used.
View serviceData Use, Reporting & Communication Systems
For teams publishing reports, dashboards, documents or public outputs that need QA, review, version control and sign-off.
View serviceFAQ
Process Failure Case Studies FAQ
Use these answers to choose the next article, calculator or service path.
What is a process failure case study?
It is a practical breakdown of a public failure that looks at the workflow behind the error, not only the event itself.
What do data workflow failures usually have in common?
They usually involve weak intake, unclear rules, poor traceability, missing monitoring, weak review or late correction.
How can weak QA lead to public harm?
When high-stakes outputs are not checked properly, people may rely on wrong scores, weak evidence, unsafe documents or unsupported decisions.
Why do document publishing workflows fail?
They fail when version control, redaction, metadata checks, sign-off and live-page review are treated as optional.
What can Robodebt, exam errors and data breaches teach evidence teams?
They show that official-looking outputs can still be wrong when the workflow behind them is not traceable, tested or reviewed.
How can teams reduce the risk of similar failures?
Use source IDs, clear ownership, documented rules, review status, monitoring, escalation paths and a correction workflow before people rely on the output.
Adjacent hubs
Move to the next part of the workflow
Most evidence and reporting problems touch more than one stage.
Let's talk
Want to reduce the risk of weak workflows becoming public problems?
If your team handles high-stakes data, evidence, documents, AI outputs or public reports, I can help review and redesign the workflow so errors are easier to catch before people rely on the output.