The Table, No. 22: Following the Evidence

From the Founding Secretariat

Good Friday. This week’s work moved through three different parts of Reseated’s process: an interim review of a reported practice, a letter to a public authority, and an evidence submission on cashflow. They are not three conclusions. Each is a step in making member reports legible, testable and useful to people able to change a practice.

That distinction matters. A report is not, by itself, proof of a pattern; a pattern review is not a rule; and a letter is not a reply. We will continue to mark what has happened, what remains under examination, and what comes next. The figures below are the exact internal totals recorded as of 10 July.

The week at the table

The lead document this week is RC/FP/2026/N.1, the Fair Play Council’s interim pattern review, dated 9 July: Payment-diversion and invoice fraud. It is an interim review, not an adopted standard. Its place in the process is to examine whether reports describe a recurring practice and whether the available evidence is strong enough to support further work.

Reseated tests each candidate pattern across five dimensions: Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread and Corroboration. The test is intended to prevent a single vivid account from being mistaken for a widespread problem, while also preventing repeated, consistent reports from being dismissed as isolated incidents. The N.1 document records an intermediate stage of that work; it does not announce a final finding or prescribe a remedy.

Two other documents were issued this week. On 6 July, RC/PL/2026/22 was sent to Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry for its review under the Transparency Act. The document records a letter from Reseated. We have no response to report in this digest, and do not presume what the Ministry will decide.

On 9 July, the Cashflow Council filed RC/CF/2026/S.3, an evidence submission titled Payment terms and the gap between invoice approval and usable cash. A submission is evidence for consideration, not an adopted council position. Together, this week’s documents show the different channels available to the Assembly: examining a reported pattern, addressing a public authority, and adding material to the evidence base.

By the numbers

As of 10 July, Reseated had 1,102 seated members in 49 countries. Members had filed 3,091 reports from 50 countries. The difference between the countries represented among members and those represented in reports reflects two separate measures; they should not be read as the same count.

Reports by council were: Platform, 1,523; Cashflow, 826; Fair Play, 284; Trade, 178; Red Tape, 132; Resilience, 78; and Team, 70. Those seven figures add to 3,091.

These totals indicate the scale and distribution of submissions, not how many have passed the five-part pattern test. Reports may describe different aspects of an issue, may require clarification, or may not establish a consistent practice. The councils’ task is to assess them carefully rather than treat volume alone as a verdict. Members can help that work by separating what they directly experienced from what they heard elsewhere, and by providing dates or records where it is safe and appropriate to do so.

From the table

A small supplier has completed work and sent an invoice. The customer confirms that the invoice is in the payment process. Before the expected payment arrives, the supplier receives a message directing payment to different account details. The message appears connected to the transaction, but the supplier cannot tell from the message alone whether the instruction is genuine. Waiting for confirmation may delay payment; acting on a false instruction may send the money beyond recovery.

For a small business, the uncertainty is not abstract. A delayed or diverted payment can affect wages, stock purchases or the next invoice coming due. The useful evidence is specific: when the instruction arrived, what changed, which channel carried it, whether a second confirmation was possible, and whether similar events were reported by others. Those details help distinguish a one-off incident from a repeatable weakness in how invoice changes are communicated or checked.

That is why the Fair Play review is interim. A careful account can help establish the shape of a problem, but no individual story should be stretched into a claim about every customer or payment system. Members should not include confidential account details in a public report. Anonymity remains the default unless a member chooses a public seat.

Coming up

The next scheduled work in July is the revised Platform Fairness Standard, the confirmation of Fellows by ballot, and the Cashflow Council’s draft RC/CF/2026/L.1, expected on 21 July. The draft will be a proposal for consultation, not an Assembly decision. The process allows members and other contributors to comment before any ballot is put to the Assembly.

The second-quarter report is also due in July. It will provide a further account of the Assembly’s work and the evidence gathered so far. Open Tables continue monthly as a place to raise issues and hear how the process works; consult the current Reseated notice for session details. Dates and outcomes will be reported when confirmed. There is no adoption ballot to announce in this week’s digest.

One thing you can do

If you have encountered a payment-diversion or invoice-fraud concern, submit a report with the sequence of events rather than only the conclusion. Note what happened, when and how often; whether the same practice appeared in other transactions; whether others in your sector or region experienced it; and what documentation can corroborate the account. Do not send passwords, full bank details or another person’s private information.

If you are responding to a council consultation, identify which part of the proposed fix addresses the practice and where it may fail in real operations. Specific, safely shared evidence helps the Assembly test a pattern before it asks anyone else to adopt a change.