Organizational Deception Risk Diagnostic Checklist

How to Use the “Risk Level” Assessment

Each subsection (for example, Inconsistency Detection or Gaslighting Indicators) contains several observable signals.

Step 1 — Evidence Review

For each section, the assessor (e.g., leadership team, compliance officer, board committee, external auditor) should:

1. Review each bullet point.

2. Mark each bullet as:

   • Observed

   • Partially observed

   • Not observed

This can be done informally or in a working paper.

Step 2 — Risk Level Selection

After reviewing the bullet points, the assessor assigns the Risk Level for that section:

Observations	Risk Level
None or one minor indicator	Low
Multiple indicators present but limited in scope or frequency	Moderate
Multiple indicators present and persistent, systemic, or escalating	High

The box is then checked:

Risk Level:☐ Low ☐ Moderate ☑ High

This creates a fast visual risk map across the organization.

Step 3 — Pattern Recognition Across Sections

Once all sections are scored, the organization looks for:

• Clusters of High

• Escalation over time

• Correlation between culture and outcomes

This reveals whether deception dynamics are isolated issues or forming a systemic pattern.

Step 4 — Aggregate Risk Interpretation

Count the number of sections marked High.

High-Risk Sections	Interpretation
0–2	Normal organizational friction
3–5	Emerging structural risk
6–8	High probability of embedded deception
9–10	Systemic integrity failure

This aggregate score informs executive and board action.

Step 5 — Action Mapping

Risk Tier	Required Response
Low	Monitor, reinforce transparency
Moderate	Formal review, leadership intervention
High	Independent audit, structural correction, protected reporting channels

Diagnostic Checklist

SECTION I: Narrative Integrity

1. Inconsistency Detection

☐ Key performance reports show unexplained fluctuations

☐ Metrics improve on paper while conditions remain unchanged

☐ Explanations shift subtly over time

☐ Targets are repeatedly “almost achieved” without structural correction

Risk Level:

Low ☐ Moderate ☐ High ☐

2. Question Tolerance

☐ Reasonable questions create discomfort

☐ Questioning triggers defensiveness rather than clarification

☐ Repeated requests for evidence are framed as disruptive

Risk Level:

Low ☐ Moderate ☐ High ☐

SECTION II: Cultural Signals

3. Loyalty vs. Accuracy Language

☐ “Alignment” replaces evidence-based discussion

☐ Disagreement is equated with lack of commitment

☐ Phrases like “support the team” suppress inquiry

Risk Level:

Low ☐ Moderate ☐ High ☐

4. Messenger Treatment

☐ First whistle-raisers experience social isolation

☐ Performance evaluations change after concerns are raised

☐ Critics are rebranded as “negative” or “difficult”

Risk Level

:Low ☐ Moderate ☐ High ☐

SECTION III: Defensive Behaviors

5. Gaslighting Indicators

☐ Observers are told they are misinterpreting facts

☐ Emotional framing replaces factual rebuttal

☐ Pressure is applied to accept the “official” interpretation

Risk Level:

Low ☐ Moderate ☐ High ☐

6. Silence Propagation

☐ Private agreement with public compliance

☐ Meetings end without recorded objections

☐ Key concerns disappear from official records

Risk Level:

Low ☐ Moderate ☐ High ☐

SECTION IV: Structural Reinforcement

7. Selective Accountability

☐ Certain individuals are effectively untouchable

☐ Failures are reframed as strategy

☐ Accountability is unevenly applied

Risk Level:

Low ☐ Moderate ☐ High ☐

8. Incentive Alignment

☐ Promotions favor narrative protectors

☐ Risk-avoiders outperform truth-tellers

☐ Incentives reward silence over correction

Risk Level:

Low ☐ Moderate ☐ High ☐

SECTION V: System Stability

9. Fear Mapping

☐ Staff express concern privately but not publicly

☐ Speaking openly is perceived as dangerous

☐ Retaliation patterns exist, formal or informal

Risk Level:

Low ☐ Moderate ☐ High ☐

10. Correction Resistance

☐ Errors are buried rather than corrected

☐ External audits are resisted

☐ Transparency initiatives stall

Risk Level:

Low ☐ Moderate ☐ High ☐

Interpretation Guide

0–7 High-Risk Indicators: Healthy system. Maintain vigilance.

8–15 High-Risk Indicators: Deception network forming. Immediate cultural intervention recommended.

16+ High-Risk Indicators: Systemic deception likely entrenched. Structural correction required at leadership level.

***

Authorial Intrusion:

"If in doubt, ask yourself if the math is mathing. If one plus one no longer equals two, or worse someone is actively telling you that it equals anything other than two, you have a very serious problem on your hands.

1 + 1 ALWAYS equals 2 until there is a liar in the room.

I have caught people at all levels, from interns to heads of state, using this methodology. So remember if someone is trying to gaslight you use your calculator and set that house of cards ablaze."

- Jared Mills, Chief Executive Officer of Copy Corp Global.