← Back to all Signals

Insolvency practitioner's handbook

Source
HM Revenue & Customs - Activity
Source link
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/insolvency-practitioner-s-handbook
Published
2026-08-03 10:57:56
Discovered by ProcIntel
2026-08-03 12:23:44
Category
Regulation, Tariffs, Sanctions & Trade
Geography
UK
Organisations
Review status
Pending
Record type
REAL

Summary

Find out what you need to account for and who to contact if you're an insolvency practitioner or official receiver dealing with HMRC.

Possibly the same underlying story as Transparency data: Insolvency practitioner sanctions: Donald Harper and Mike Reeves 21 April 2026 — flagged automatically for review, never merged automatically.

Procurement Relevance Gate

PASS — score 22.8/100 — evaluated 2026-08-03 12:23:44
Passed on: financial_distress_solvency, geographic_exposure (score 22.8/100, threshold 20.0).
  • financial_distress_solvency (weight 12) — matched on "insolvency"
  • geographic_exposure (weight 8) — matched on "1 linked geography"

Initial Signal Assessment ProcIntel's automatic, provisional read of this individual Signal -- Initial Significance and Initial Confidence, computed deterministically before any Event extraction or human review.

A provisional, automatically-computed reading of this individual Signal, before Event extraction or human review. Not a final rating.

Initial Significance
2 · Moderate (32.0/100)
Initial Confidence
2 · Low (39.0/100)
Data sufficiency Whether enough structured evidence exists to trust this Signal's Initial Confidence reading. 'Sufficient' has no cap; 'Partial' and 'Insufficient' cap Confidence until more evidence is available; 'Not Assessed' means the Signal did not pass the Relevance Gate.
Insufficient
Strongest contributor
Procurement Impact
Limiting factor
Geographic Breadth

Initial Significance Moderate (32.0/100). Strongest contributor: Procurement Impact (21.0/30 points). Limiting factor: Geographic Breadth (0.0/10 points). Initial Confidence Low (39/100, data sufficiency: Insufficient). Strongest contributor: Source Authority (40.0/40 points). Limiting factor: Specificity (0.0/20 points). Capped at 39 (Low) -- insufficient structured evidence to support a higher Confidence reading, regardless of source authority.

  • No likely Event type matched; a low contextual baseline was applied.
  • no confidence-specificity evidence (actor entity, date, quantified value, or concrete verb)
  • no matched Event type
  • no actor entities (only attribution/metadata, if any)
  • no actor content-derived geography
  • structurally non-narrative content
  • Entities were mentioned as context or document attribution rather than as actors in the reported development, so they did not increase Initial Confidence.
  • Only source-level geography metadata was available.
  • Source metadata did not contribute to Initial Confidence.
  • No content-derived entity or Event evidence was identified.

Methodology signal_scoring_v1 — calculated 2026-08-03 16:30:19.