Government decisions enter the public record and are subject to scrutiny that has no deadline — parliamentary committees, NAO reviews, judicial review, FOI requests, and the sustained attention of a free press. The evidence base that underpins a public decision needs to withstand that scrutiny from the moment it’s published. Augle applies it before publication.
Public sector decisions pass through internal review processes that are thorough but rarely adversarial. A select committee researcher, a NAO analyst, a judicial review claimant, or an investigative journalist approaches the same evidence base with a different objective: finding the weakness. The impact assessment whose cost-benefit methodology won’t survive Treasury Select Committee scrutiny. The programme whose evidence base relies on a superseded study. These things get found — the question is when.
Questions government teams run on Augle
The Methodologist evaluates every key assumption in a business case against the evidence that supports it. Optimism bias in cost estimates, benefit calculations that depend on assumptions the Green Book framework doesn’t permit, or BCRs built on evidence from a different context — each is identified and graded before the case goes to approval. The NAO’s methodology review starts from exactly these points.
The Contrarian takes the role of a well-briefed select committee researcher, a hostile expert witness, or a judicial review claimant — surfacing the external validity objection, the population scope mismatch, the evidence recency problem. Unresolved Strong objections appear verbatim with resolution conditions. These become the policy team’s preparation agenda, not the committee’s gotcha.
Legal integrity mode validates every statutory reference against current version and applicable jurisdiction. A policy document that cites superseded regulations, or a legal basis that doesn’t apply to the specific context being addressed, is flagged before it enters a ministerial submission or a published consultation. These are the citations that attract judicial review claims.
Major procurement decisions are subject to challenge from unsuccessful bidders and ongoing NAO scrutiny. The Contrarian evaluates whether the evaluation criteria were applied consistently, whether the evidence for the winning bid’s claimed capabilities is independently supported, and whether the whole-life cost methodology is defensible. The audit trail Augle produces is the record you want available when challenged.
Each scenario illustrates realistic deliberation behaviour across business case review, policy evidence assessment, and ministerial briefing preparation.
“Does the Full Business Case for this digital transformation programme have a BCR and cost-benefit methodology that will withstand Treasury and NAO scrutiny, and what are the two assumptions most likely to be challenged?”
The NAO’s 2023 report was in the public domain. No one on the programme team had mapped it to the business case assumptions. A revised BCR of 2.6:1 on a defensible methodology is a better outcome than a challenged BCR of 3.2:1 — especially when the NAO is citing their own published work.
“Does the evidence base in the ministerial briefing pack for the select committee appearance on youth employment hold up, and what are the three questions the committee will ask that the brief doesn’t currently answer?”
The IFS analysis was published and the committee had it. A ministerial brief that doesn’t acknowledge it looks like the department hasn’t read it. A brief that addresses it proactively demonstrates the department has — and has a considered position. One paragraph changes the committee dynamic entirely.
“What is the strongest judicial review ground a claimant could use to challenge this planning policy decision, and does the evidence base in the decision record adequately address it?”
Both JR grounds were addressable before publication. The PSED gap required an expanded analysis section. The consultation adequacy question required a legal opinion. Neither required the decision to be remade — but both required action before publication, not after a claim was filed.
Upload business cases, policy papers, ministerial briefings, impact assessments, and legal advice. Academic and legal integrity modes activate — the Guardian validates statutory references against current versions, checks retraction status on cited research, and flags source independence concerns before any agent receives the evidence.
The Cartographer classifies every claim as Settled, Contested, or Unknown in the relevant policy and legal context. The Methodologist evaluates construct validity — whether BCR assumptions are Green Book-compliant, whether the evidence base generalises to the target population, whether the legal analysis reflects current case law.
The Contrarian takes the role of a select committee researcher, NAO analyst, judicial review claimant, or investigative journalist — surfacing the strongest challenge to the evidence base or decision record. Unresolved Strong objections appear verbatim with resolution conditions. These become the preparation agenda before the decision is published.
The full session audit trail is exportable — SVS verification outcomes, confidence grades per claim, every objection raised and its resolution status. For public decisions subject to parliamentary scrutiny, judicial review, FOI requests, or NAO review, this is the record that demonstrates the evidence base was reviewed to an appropriate standard.
The Contrarian surfaces the objection a NAO analyst, select committee researcher, or judicial review claimant will raise — at maximum temperature, with the strongest possible framing. Unresolved objections appear verbatim with resolution conditions. The policy team that prepares for these questions before publication controls the outcome. The one that encounters them for the first time in committee doesn’t.
Legal integrity mode checks every statutory citation against current version and applicable jurisdiction. Superseded regulations, outdated case law, and cross-jurisdiction misapplications are flagged before they enter a ministerial submission or published consultation. These are the citations that attract judicial review claims and committee questions about departmental competence.
Every session produces an exportable record — SVS verification outcomes, confidence grades, every objection raised and its resolution status. For decisions subject to FOI, judicial review, parliamentary scrutiny, or NAO review, this record demonstrates the evidence base was reviewed to a standard consistent with the accountability requirements that apply to public sector decisions.
Join the waitlist and run a session on your next business case, policy paper, or ministerial brief.