Six kinds of statement. Never confused with each other.
Every Intelplexis change review keeps six things strictly separate: what the provider said, what we think it may mean, what your firm has confirmed, what was determined, what must be done, and what proves it was done. That separation is the product.
Each line of a review is labeled by what kind of claim it is.
1 · Provider fact
What the exchange, clearing house or operator actually published — quoted or restated without interpretation, with the source document identified and retained. Where two provider notices conflict, the conflict is recorded and the controlling source stated.
2 · Intelplexis analysis
Why the change may matter, which functions it typically touches, and what kind of firm it concerns. Always labeled as analysis — never presented as fact, and never presented as your firm’s situation.
3 · Client-confirmed dependency
A fact about your firm — a membership, session, product table, feed or connection — supplied and confirmed by your firm. We record who confirmed it and when. We never invent or infer these.
4 · Applicability determination
The reasoned conclusion that a change does or does not concern your firm — produced by testing the provider facts against your confirmed dependencies, with both branches of the test stated and the reason preserved either way.
5 · Required action
For applicable changes: what must be done, by whom, by when. Owner and due date are agreed with your firm — we propose, you decide.
6 · Closure evidence
The artefact that shows each action was completed — named in advance, so “done” has a defined meaning before the work starts. Held or referenced, indexed against the notice.
Public information ends where your firm begins.
From public information alone, Intelplexis can identify that a change exists, what the provider says it does, and what kind of firm it may concern. That is where public information stops. Intelplexis may identify a potential impact from public information, but it cannot determine firm-specific applicability without firm-specific dependency evidence. Whether your sessions route through the affected infrastructure, whether your product tables reference the affected codes, whether you participate in the affected scheme — those are your firm’s facts, and every determination that uses them is built on what your firm supplied and confirmed.
This is why the review format shows an explicit “confirmation required from your firm” step, and why a review of a firm we hold no dependency information for can honestly conclude only “potential — at firm-type level.” A service that skips this step is guessing.
What a week of the service looks like.
- Notices from your named providers are reviewed as they are published
- Related notices are consolidated into one change; source conflicts reconciled in writing
- Irrelevant notices are dismissed with the reason logged — the dismissal trail is a deliverable
- Potentially relevant changes produce an Applicability Query: reconciled facts plus the one question that decides it
- Actions recorded with owner, due date and named closure evidence
- Deadlines tracked against the provider’s effective dates, with escalation before — not after — a date is missed
- Evidence collected or referenced, and a dated closure record countersigned by your owner
- Everything summarised in the weekly one-page review
Your firm keeps working in its own tools — email, Jira, ServiceNow, GRC. Intelplexis records reference your tickets; it does not replace them. If you disagree with a determination, the challenge and the response are recorded in the same review, and neither is erased.
See the format on a real notice.
The sample review shows every statement type on a genuine published change.