---
title: "Draft a reportable-situation assessment and s 912D notification"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/financial-services-regulation/draft-a-reportable-breach-assessment-and-notification/commonwealth"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A28-T1-R3-CTH"
practice_area: "Financial Services Regulation (AFSL/ASIC/credit)"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["CTH"]
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Draft a reportable-situation assessment and s 912D notification

> From the incident facts, build a timeline and draft s 912D notification against the reportable-situation tests (Corporations Act Pt 7.6 Div 3; NCCP Act equivalents).

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/financial-services-regulation/draft-a-reportable-breach-assessment-and-notification/commonwealth  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Financial Services Regulation (AFSL/ASIC/credit)](https://ailawframework.com/practice/financial-services-regulation.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| How AI is used | From the incident facts, build a timeline and draft s 912D notification against the reportable-situation tests (Corporations Act Pt 7.6 Div 3; NCCP Act equivalents). |
| What the lawyer must review | Write every substantive sentence yourself; an error may breach s 1308 Keep the s 912D and NCCP s 50A tests apart Check the investigation trigger (60 days, Instrument 2025/289, from 27 June 2025) Check the 30-day reporting clock Check privilege and verify the timeline |
| Written for | Commonwealth |
| Applies to | [Draft a reportable-breach assessment and notification](https://ailawframework.com/practice/financial-services-regulation/draft-a-reportable-breach-assessment-and-notification.md) |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer review required**

The responsible lawyer reviews the work against the instructions, sources and intended use.

- What the AI does: Potential support includes preparing preliminary structure or wording. Confirm the tool’s capability and permitted scope.
- What the lawyer does: Set the scope, verify the evidence, resolve exceptions and approve the final output for its intended use.
- Who reviews: Responsible lawyer with competence in the matter
- Basis: Suggested checking approach based on the task guidance. Complete the assessment for the actual tool, information and jurisdiction.
- Why: The plan reflects the described work and review requirements. Policy colours are not used to determine permission or checking.

## Checks the lawyer makes

1. Confirm that the actual tool, feature and processing terms permit use of this information, including access, retention, training and disclosure conditions.
2. Verify dates, people and sequence against contemporaneous records. Preserve uncertainty and identify gaps or conflicting accounts.
3. Verify the applicable jurisdiction and the version of each relevant law, rule or instrument in force at the material time.
4. Confirm the output against the client’s instructions and the complete relevant source material, including omissions or contradictions.
5. Resolve exceptions and record the responsible lawyer’s approval of the exact output and intended use.

## Notes

- Confirm the required checking with the responsible lawyer before work starts. The checking approach does not establish permission to use AI.

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*