Dhamma · Reflection · Statements · Peaceful Communication
☸

Office Of Siridantamahapalaka

Personal website of Sao Dhammasami — Daily Dhamma, reflections, statements, articles and archival records.

Archive and publication page · Use Search, Topics, or the Month & Year archive to locate related materials.

Office Of Siridantamahapalaka: Template No.: T218 Template Title: Partner Reputation & Conflict-of-Interest Check Form

Chronological Archive

Template No.: T218 Template Title: Partner Reputation & Conflict-of-Interest Check Form

on

 THE HSWAGATA BUDDHA TOOTH RELIC PRESERVATION MUSEUM

FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY

Template No.: T218

Template Title: Partner Reputation & Conflict-of-Interest Check Form

Related Research Case IDs / Cluster: Cluster E (Science, Testing, Misinformation), Cases 46–65 (also link C for partnerships/MoUs; F for conflict risk; H for ethics model)

Linked Templates / Policies: T157 (Partnership Proposal Evaluation), T156 / T24 (MoU templates), T214 (Risk Assessment for Testing Proposal), T216 (Ethics & Consent Review), T213 (Media Interview Prep), T190 (Media Approval), T163 (Risk Register Entry), T173 (Records Classification)

Date of form: ____ / ____ / ______

Prepared by / Role: _______________________

Office / Unit: ____________________________

Country / Location: _______________________

Confidentiality Level:
Internal only [ ] Restricted [ ] Sacred-Restricted / Sensitive [ ]

Use of this form (tick):
New case / action [ ] Follow-up [ ] Annual review [ ] Archive only [ ]

1) Purpose (why we use this form)

This form checks a partner’s reputation and conflict of interest (COI) before cooperation.
It helps protect faith, heritage, public trust, and peace.

2) Partner identity (partner details)

  • Partner organisation name: ________________________________________

  • Type (tick): Lab [ ] University [ ] Museum [ ] NGO [ ] Company [ ] Temple [ ] Government office [ ] Other: ______

  • Country/city: _________________________________________________

  • Website (optional): _____________________________________________

Main contact person

  • Name/title: _________________________________________________

  • Email/phone: _________________________________________________

HSWAGATA link

  • Proposed project / reason for partnership: __________________________

  • Related dossier/proposal ID (if any): _______________________________

  • Related templates (tick): T157 [ ] T214 [ ] T215 [ ] T216 [ ] Other: ____

3) Quick screening (stop/hold triggers)

Tick if any apply. If “Yes”, consider Hold and escalate.

  • Partner refuses to share basic legal identity/registration. Yes [ ] No [ ]

  • Partner demands secrecy that breaks museum policy. Yes [ ] No [ ]

  • Partner asks for special access to restricted relic areas. Yes [ ] No [ ]

  • Partner promises “guaranteed proof” or “miracle verification.” Yes [ ] No [ ]

  • Partner wants media publicity before ethics approval. Yes [ ] No [ ]

  • Partner has active legal case that may affect trust. Yes [ ] No [ ]

Notes: ____________________________________________________________

4) Reputation check (known controversies)

A) Known controversies (write facts only)

Controversy 1 (what is known): ______________________________________

  • Source type (tick): News [ ] Official report [ ] Court record [ ] Community report [ ] Online claim [ ] Other: ____

  • Year/date (if known): ___________________________________________

  • Status (tick): Confirmed [ ] Not confirmed [ ] Mixed/unclear [ ]

  • Risk to HSWAGATA (tick): Low [ ] Medium [ ] High [ ]
    Notes: ____________________________________________________________

Controversy 2: _________________________________________________

  • Status: Confirmed [ ] Unclear [ ]

  • Risk level: Low [ ] Medium [ ] High [ ]
    Notes: ____________________________________________________________

B) Public trust signals (positive/negative)

Tick and note evidence.

  • Good reputation in heritage/science community [ ] Notes: _____________

  • Strong ethics policy published [ ] Notes: ___________________________

  • Past partnerships with credible institutions [ ] Notes: _______________

  • Complaints from communities about disrespect [ ] Notes: _____________

  • Accusations of “fake relic testing” or scams [ ] Notes: _______________

  • Other signal: __________________________ [ ] Notes: ________________

5) Funding sources and independence (funding sources)

List what is known. If unknown, mark “unknown” and request info.

  • Main funding sources (tick): Government [ ] University [ ] Private donors [ ] Corporate [ ] Service fees [ ] Grants [ ] Unknown [ ]
    Details: __________________________________________________________

  • Any funding linked to political parties or conflict groups? Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure [ ]
    If Yes/Not sure, explain carefully: __________________________________

  • Any funding linked to heritage trade / collectors market? Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure [ ]
    Notes: ____________________________________________________________

6) Conflict-of-interest (COI) check (links to conflicts)

COI means: a personal or organisational interest that may bias decisions.

A) Organisational COI

  • Partner sells paid “authentication certificates” to the public. Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure [ ]

  • Partner earns money based on a “positive result.” Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure [ ]

  • Partner wants exclusive rights to publish first. Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure [ ]

  • Partner requests ownership/control of data. Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure [ ]

  • Partner has a commercial product linked to this project. Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure [ ]

Notes: ____________________________________________________________

B) Individual COI (key persons)

For each key person, record declared interests.

Person 1 name/title: _______________________________________________

  • Declared COI? Yes [ ] No [ ] Not asked [ ]

  • COI details (short): ______________________________________________

Person 2 name/title: _______________________________________________

  • Declared COI? Yes [ ] No [ ] Not asked [ ]

  • COI details (short): ______________________________________________

COI declaration form attached? Yes [ ] No [ ]

7) Links to conflicts or sensitive disputes (peace risk)

Tick if any link exists.

  • Partner linked to past heritage disputes (ownership/return cases). Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure [ ]

  • Partner linked to theft, illicit trade, or handling unproven objects. Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure [ ]

  • Partner linked to community tensions (religious/ethnic/political). Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure [ ]

  • Partner linked to misinformation campaigns. Yes [ ] No [ ] Not sure [ ]

Notes (facts only, no rumours): ______________________________________

If peace risk seems medium/high, consider: T214 [ ] T163 [ ] and senior review.

8) Due diligence documents requested (what we asked for)

Tick and record what is received.

  • Legal registration documents [ ] Received [ ] Date: //____

  • Ethics policy / code of conduct [ ] Received [ ] Date: //____

  • List of board/owners (if relevant) [ ] Received [ ] Date: //____

  • Lab accreditation / credentials [ ] Received [ ] Date: //____

  • Past project references (2–3) [ ] Received [ ] Date: //____

  • Data security policy [ ] Received [ ] Date: //____

  • COI declarations (key staff) [ ] Received [ ] Date: //____

  • Insurance / liability coverage (if needed) [ ] Received [ ] Date: //____

  • Other: __________________________ [ ] Received [ ] Date: //____

Missing items (list): _______________________________________________

9) Risk rating and mitigation (decision support)

A) Risk ratings (tick)

  • Reputation risk: Low [ ] Medium [ ] High [ ]

  • COI risk: Low [ ] Medium [ ] High [ ]

  • Peace/conflict risk: Low [ ] Medium [ ] High [ ]

  • Data/security risk: Low [ ] Medium [ ] High [ ]

Overall risk (tick): Low [ ] Medium [ ] High [ ] Critical [ ]

B) Mitigation options (tick and note)

  • Require written COI declarations and publish limits [ ] Notes: _________

  • Use independent second lab review [ ] Notes: _______________________

  • Use strong MoU clauses (data, publication, confidentiality) [ ] Notes: __

  • Limit access to files/objects (need-to-know) [ ] Notes: ______________

  • Use neutral language in all public text [ ] Notes: ___________________

  • Hold/stop partnership until missing docs arrive [ ] Notes: ____________

  • Other mitigation: __________________________ [ ] Notes: ____________

10) Decision and approvals

Decision (tick one):
Approve partner (low risk) [ ]
Approve with conditions/mitigation [ ]
Hold for more checks / documents [ ]
Do not approve partner [ ]

Reasons (short, factual):

If approved with conditions, list conditions:

Risk register entry needed (T163)? Yes [ ] No [ ] Risk ID: _____________

11) Signatures and filing

Prepared by (name/role): _______________________ Signature: __________ Date: //____

Reviewed by (Science/Verification lead): ________ Signature: __________ Date: //____
Reviewed by (Doctrinal/Ethics): ________________ Signature: __________ Date: //____
Reviewed by (Security/Data): ___________________ Signature: __________ Date: //____

Approved by (Director/Authority/Board): _________ Signature: __________ Date: //____

File code / reference ID: ____________________
Classification recommended (T173): Internal [ ] Restricted [ ] Sacred-Restricted [ ]
File location (cabinet/folder + digital path): __________________________
Retention period: 3 years [ ] 5 years [ ] 10 years [ ] Permanent [ ] Other: ____