Five connected Surveillance control workflows

A Surveillance review is a controlled chain—not one generic incident form.

This suite separates authorization, evidence analysis, camera-coverage fitness, procedure correction, and final report wording. Use one case reference across the chain, but keep each decision within the correct authority and restricted record.

Compare Surveillance controls Return to all 67 apps

Authorize and scope

Confirm the requester, authority, legitimate purpose, event window, privacy limits, required sources, preservation urgency, owner, deadline, and expected deliverable.

Review and protect evidence

Separate observations from reports and hypotheses, preserve original sources, compare conduct with the approved procedure, test alternatives, record limitations, and avoid unsupported misconduct conclusions.

Assess coverage fitness

Evaluate whether each camera position supports the stated objective, including view, image quality, obstruction, blind spots, retention, time synchronization, temporary controls, and acceptance evidence.

Correct verified procedure issues

Record the confirmed procedure weakness, risk, interim control, accountable owner, corrective action, approval, training or communication, due date, retest, and effectiveness evidence.

Assure report wording

Review the controlled report for attribution, certainty, neutrality, source references, terminology, privacy, limitations, approval, and restricted distribution while preserving the original version.

Surveillance Review, Protection & Coverage Control Suite

Choose the workflow by the Surveillance decision that must be controlled now

The same footage, event reference, procedure, camera position, or report may appear in several workflows. Each application answers a different question and has a different reviewer, evidence threshold, privacy boundary, and closure test.

01Authorized request intake

Surveillance Review Request Intake

Primary reviewer: Surveillance Supervisor or authorized intake reviewer, with requester and approving manager identified
Use when: Before restricted review work begins, when authority, purpose, scope, sources, preservation, privacy, ownership, deadline, and deliverable must be controlled.
Control question: Is the request legitimate, authorized, sufficiently bounded, evidence-aware, privacy-controlled, assigned, and ready for Surveillance work?
Core evidence: Requester and authorizer, operational purpose, event window, location, inclusions and exclusions, known facts versus reported information, source availability, preservation status, privacy classification, review questions, owner, deadline, and delivery controls.
Not for: Emergency response, open-ended monitoring, scope expansion without authorization, unnecessary personal-data collection, or deciding the review outcome at intake.

Review workflow →Open single-user tool ↗

02Game-protection evidence review

Game Protection Evidence Review

Primary reviewer: Surveillance Analyst or Game Protection Specialist with Surveillance and Table Games management review
Use when: A game-protection concern requires source-linked observations, procedure comparison, alternative hypotheses, disconfirming evidence, temporary controls, ownership, and a cautious management conclusion.
Control question: What do the authorized sources support or contradict, what remains uncertain, which temporary protection controls are proportionate, and what management decision is required?
Core evidence: Game and event identity, approved procedure, camera and system references, observations, verification status, hypotheses, evidence for and against, alternative explanations, confidence, risk significance, controls, owners, deadlines, and limitations.
Not for: Declaring cheating, collusion, advantage play, intent, or employee misconduct from an anomaly, wager pattern, association, or incomplete review.

Review workflow →Open single-user tool ↗

03Camera coverage assessment

Surveillance Camera Coverage Assessment

Primary reviewer: Surveillance Supervisor or Technical Lead with IT, Facilities, Security, Compliance, or management review as required
Use when: A defined operational objective requires assessment of camera view, image quality, obstruction, blind spots, retention, time synchronization, temporary controls, remediation, and acceptance testing.
Control question: Does the selected coverage reliably support the stated operational objective, which gaps require temporary control or technical work, and what evidence will prove remediation?
Core evidence: Area and objective, camera references, view and quality ratings, obstruction and blind spots, retention, time sync, severity, evidence references, temporary controls, owners, deadlines, test method, technical action, and management acceptance.
Not for: Publishing sensitive coverage details broadly, treating one score as universal security assurance, or changing cameras, retention, audio, biometrics, or monitoring without approval.

Review workflow →Open single-user tool ↗

04Procedure issue correction

Surveillance Procedure Issue Tracker

Primary reviewer: Surveillance Manager or procedure owner with Compliance, Training, IT, Facilities, Security, or affected operations input
Use when: A Surveillance procedure weakness has been verified and requires interim control, root-cause review, corrective action, approval, training or communication, retest, and effectiveness monitoring.
Control question: What procedure weakness is verified, what risk does it create, what interim and permanent controls are approved, and what evidence demonstrates effective closure?
Core evidence: Issue reference, affected procedure and version, trigger, verified condition, risk, recurrence, root causes, interim control, corrective action, owner, due date, approval, training, communication, retest, effectiveness, and closure authority.
Not for: Treating a reported concern as confirmed without evidence, rewriting controlled procedures informally, bypassing document control, or closing an issue because an action was merely assigned.

Review workflow →Open single-user tool ↗

05Report wording quality

Surveillance Report Wording Review

Primary reviewer: Surveillance Report Writer and Supervisor or authorized approving reviewer; Legal, Compliance, HR, or management when required
Use when: A controlled Surveillance report requires review for unsupported certainty, intent or guilt language, subjective wording, vague attribution, inconsistent terminology, missing sources, limitations, approval, and distribution controls.
Control question: Which wording must be retained, revised, sourced, qualified, attributed, restricted, or independently reviewed before approval and distribution?
Core evidence: Original controlled text, purpose and audience, reporting standard, source-verification position, wording findings, reviewer decisions, terminology register, revised text, material changes, limitations, approval, completion date, revision history, and distribution restrictions.
Not for: Replacing factual or legal review, concealing material verified facts, rewriting the original record without traceability, or treating a zero-flag result as proof of accuracy.

Review workflow →Open single-user tool ↗

Five connected Surveillance control workflows

One controlled review path across five separate workflows

Authorize the work before viewing restricted material, preserve and assess evidence, confirm whether coverage supports the operational objective, correct verified procedure weaknesses, and approve neutral report wording only after source review.

1
Authorize and scope
Confirm the requester, authority, legitimate purpose, event window, privacy limits, required sources, preservation urgency, owner, deadline, and expected deliverable.
2
Review and protect evidence
Separate observations from reports and hypotheses, preserve original sources, compare conduct with the approved procedure, test alternatives, record limitations, and avoid unsupported misconduct conclusions.
3
Assess coverage fitness
Evaluate whether each camera position supports the stated objective, including view, image quality, obstruction, blind spots, retention, time synchronization, temporary controls, and acceptance evidence.
4
Correct verified procedure issues
Record the confirmed procedure weakness, risk, interim control, accountable owner, corrective action, approval, training or communication, due date, retest, and effectiveness evidence.
5
Assure report wording
Review the controlled report for attribution, certainty, neutrality, source references, terminology, privacy, limitations, approval, and restricted distribution while preserving the original version.

Human authority retained

Evidence, privacy, technical, and human-authority boundaries

A review request must have a legitimate authorized purpose. The suite does not permit open-ended monitoring, unnecessary personal-data collection, or access beyond need-to-know restrictions.
An anomaly, wager pattern, procedure deviation, or association does not by itself establish cheating, collusion, intent, guilt, or employee misconduct. Authorized management retains formal conclusions and actions.
Camera identifiers, blind spots, retention, time synchronization, technical settings, and coverage gaps are restricted information. Changes require approved technical, privacy, legal, regulatory, and management controls.
Automated wording flags identify phrases for human review; they do not verify facts, determine legal sufficiency, or replace the original evidence, official report, approval history, or controlled distribution process.

Surveillance Review, Protection & Coverage Control Suite

Start with one recurring Surveillance review that currently moves between requests, footage notes, technical messages, procedure actions, and report revisions.

A useful pilot links one restricted reference across intake, evidence review, coverage assessment, procedure correction, wording approval, owners, deadlines, and authorized closure without combining all records into one uncontrolled file.

Discuss a casino operations role Return to all 67 apps