FGL aims to make technical material practical without weakening the evidence behind it. This page explains the research approach used for serious guides, case analyses, case briefs, calculators and other professional resources.
1. Start with the question, not the conclusion
Research begins by defining the practical question, the relevant jurisdiction, the period being analysed and the type of authority needed to answer it. FGL should not search only for material that confirms a preferred conclusion.
2. Source hierarchy
Where available and relevant, FGL generally prefers sources in this order:
- Primary legal and regulatory material: legislation, regulations, gazettes, court and tribunal decisions, regulator notices and official administrative guidance.
- Professional standards and standard setters: IFRS Foundation material, recognised auditing or professional standards, and official guidance from professional bodies.
- Original institutional evidence: audited reports, official inquiries, company filings, board or government reports and published statements from the organisation concerned.
- High-quality secondary sources: reputable professional-firm commentary, academic work and established journalism used for context, comparison or explanation.
Secondary sources can be useful, but they should not silently replace an available primary source on a material technical point.
3. Tax and regulatory research
For Uganda tax content, FGL should identify the relevant statutory provision, amendment, effective date and current administrative guidance where practicable. A Finance Act, statutory amendment, URA publication or tribunal decision may need to be read together rather than in isolation.
4. Accounting and professional standards
Where an article explains an accounting or auditing standard, FGL should prefer the standard setter or recognised professional authority. Explanatory examples should be clearly presented as illustrations rather than quotations from the standard unless they actually originate there.
5. Court, tribunal and regulator cases
Case analysis should identify the forum, date, parties, issue and procedural status where these are material. FGL distinguishes a party's allegation or submission from a court, tribunal or regulator finding. Settlements are not treated as admissions unless the source says so.
6. Calculations and tools
Material rates, thresholds and assumptions used in FGL calculators should be traced to authoritative sources where possible and reviewed when rules change. A calculator is a planning or learning aid, not an official assessment or filing system.
7. Cross-checking
High-impact technical claims should be checked against more than one source where doing so materially reduces the risk of misreading a rule, date, procedural status or calculation. Apparent conflicts between sources should be investigated and, if unresolved, disclosed.
8. Interpretation and professional judgement
FGL may explain why a rule or case matters in practice. That interpretive layer should be separated from the authority itself. Readers should be able to tell whether a statement is a documented source fact, an attributed view, or FGL's own professional interpretation.
9. Currency and review
Technical content can become stale. FGL therefore records review dates on important evergreen resources and rechecks material when legislation, standards, regulatory practice or the status of a dispute changes.
10. Research limitations
Not every official document is always available online, complete, searchable or current. Where FGL cannot verify a material fact from an adequate source, the gap should be stated rather than filled with assumption.
Comments
Post a Comment