PortfolioCheckProposed remediation evidence method Download source ↓

Successive-return remediation and evidence assurance

PortfolioCheck keeps hazard, exposure, vulnerability and evidence assurance separate. A sea, river, rainfall regime or heat climate does not become safer because a bank uploads a document. Only the measure-specific vulnerability or damage reduction can receive credit.

Governance status: this is a proposed pilot methodology, not a Bank of Ghana rule. The stage percentages require BoG approval, Ghana-specific calibration, independent validation and periodic review.

Evidence stages

StageAssuranceMinimum evidence
Declared / planned0%Action owner, target asset, measure and completion date.
Completed — documentary evidence25%Dated geotagged photographs plus invoice or completion record.
Technically reviewed60%Design/as-built record reviewed by a competent independent professional.
Operationally verified85%Site inspection or commissioning record plus maintenance responsibility.
Performance verified100%Measured performance or post-event evidence against a documented baseline.

Scoring formula

effective_credit = engineering_credit × evidence_score / 100

The engineering credit is hazard- and measure-specific. Multiple measures combine on residual vulnerability, are capped, and are checked for overlapping effects. Entering an activity gives no credit; successive-return recalculation occurs only after completion and accepted evidence.

Supervisory workflow

  1. Bank records an asset-level action and target date.
  2. Bank submits evidence metadata and a document fingerprint.
  3. Evidence is reviewed, accepted, rejected or sampled.
  4. The next return recalculates the asset using the accepted stage.
  5. Expired evidence or failed maintenance reverses the credit.
  6. Submission hash, methodology version and evidence decision remain in the audit trail.

Research basis