The Supervisory Evidence Gap
A shared evidence record linking source information, access permissions, unresolved questions and supervisory decisions.
Abstract
More frequent regulatory reporting does not necessarily produce more timely or better-supported supervisory decisions. Supervisors must also identify how new evidence affects prior assessments. This paper develops a shared evidence record linking source information, access permissions, unresolved questions and supervisory decisions. A critical literature review situates the proposal within research on regulatory reporting, evidence provenance and the revision of decisions when their supporting assumptions change. An executable model specifies how changes in evidence or permissions identify decisions requiring review. It passes 184 checks and detects eight deliberately introduced faults; these results establish selected properties of the model, rather than effectiveness in regulatory practice. A prospective comparative study holds evidence availability, delivery times, access rights and analytical capabilities constant to assess the contribution of linking evidence to decisions. Its primary hypothesis concerns a reduction in time to justified initial and revised decisions, subject to predefined conditions for decision quality, workload and disclosure. The statistical analysis plan and synthetic simulations assess these conditions jointly and identify sensitivity to sample size and missing observations. The paper establishes a conceptual and testable basis for linking shared evidence to supervisory decisions. Effects on human performance and total regulatory burden require independent empirical evaluation.