Setup Considerations: the violation catalog

What this achieves

The violation catalog is the list of things a case can be about, and each entry carries the ladder of stages a repeat of that violation escalates through. It decides what an administrator can raise a case for and, for a second or third incident, which stage the case lands on — so it is worth settling before anyone uses it.

Decision 1: how many violation types

Each type is a separate history. Escalation counts incidents of that violation, not incidents in general, so where you draw the lines decides who escalates.

Option	Description
Few, broad types	One history per employee in practice. A second incident of any kind escalates. Simple, and blunt where the two incidents have nothing to do with each other.
Many, narrow types	Each pattern escalates on its own. Fairer to someone with two unrelated single incidents, and slower to escalate anyone.

Example: at HC Corp UK Ltd, splitting lateness and safety into separate types means Tom Hargreaves being late once and breaching a safety rule once stays at the first stage of both. Merging them into one conduct type would put the safety incident on the second rung.

Decision 2: severity

Severity is set on the violation type, not per case, so every case raised under a type inherits it.

Option	Description
Minor	A low-level conduct issue.
Major	A serious issue.
Gross misconduct	The most serious category.

That inheritance is the thing to think about. If one type would sometimes be minor and sometimes gross misconduct, it is two types, because nobody can change the severity on the case in front of them.

Example: HC Corp UK Ltd keeps a separate type for a safety breach rather than filing it under a general conduct type, so a case about it does not read as minor on the list.

Decision 3: how many rungs on the ladder

The ladder is an ordered list of stages, each with a name and the consequences that stage carries. A first incident resolves at stage one, a second at stage two, and so on.

A short ladder reaches its most serious stage quickly. A long one gives more room but asks you to describe a real difference between each rung. Write only the rungs you would actually use.

Example: a three-rung ladder at HC Corp UK Ltd — a verbal warning, then a written warning, then a final warning — is easier to apply consistently than a six-rung one where nobody can say what separates rungs four and five.

Once someone is past the final rung, further incidents stay there. The case shows this as Capped at the final stage, rather than inventing a stage that does not exist.

Decision 4: the reset window

Reset window (months) is how long an incident keeps counting towards escalation. Past it, earlier incidents stop counting and the next case starts at stage one again. The case shows this as Clean period elapsed — history reset.

This is the single most consequential number on a violation type, because it decides whether someone’s past follows them.

Option	Description
A short window	History clears quickly. A pattern spread over a long period never escalates.
A long window	An incident follows someone for longer. A single bad month can shape their record for years.
No reset	Nothing ever clears. Every incident of that type escalates on every previous one, permanently.

Example: a twelve-month window at HC Corp UK Ltd means an incident in March 2026 no longer counts towards escalation for a case raised after March 2027. A thirty-six-month window means it still does.

Set this deliberately, and set it the same way across types unless you can say why one differs. Take advice on the window itself — the product enforces the number you give it and takes no view on what it should be.

Decision 5: whether acknowledgement is required

Requires acknowledgment is set per violation type. When it is on, the employee must acknowledge before consequences apply.

Leaving it off means consequences can take effect without the employee having responded. That is a decision about your process, not a convenience setting, and it is worth taking advice on before you turn it off for any type.

Decision 6: tenant-wide or per legal entity

The catalog has a Scope. An entry is either the Tenant-wide default or scoped to one legal entity.

Option	Description
Tenant-wide default	One catalog everywhere. Least to maintain.
Scoped to a legal entity	That entity gets its own types and ladders. Use it where an entity genuinely needs different stages or a different reset window.

Example: HC Corp UK Ltd and HC Corp Inc. can share a tenant-wide catalog and diverge only on the one type where their processes genuinely differ.

What is expensive to change later

Decision	Cost of changing later
The code on a violation type	Cannot be changed at all. It is fixed when the type is created.
Severity, once cases exist	High. Existing cases keep the severity they were raised under, so the list reads inconsistently.
Reset window, once cases exist	High. It changes which past incidents count, and therefore which stage the next case lands on.
Adding or removing a rung mid-ladder	High. Stage numbers shift, and cases already resolved keep the stage they resolved at.
Deleting a violation type	Cannot be undone. Delete is barred entirely on the types that ship with the product.
Deactivating a type	Low. It stops being offerable on new cases and existing cases are unaffected.

Prefer deactivating to deleting. A type with cases behind it is the only record of why those cases were raised.

What happens next

Once the catalog exists, set the policy for the same scope — it decides which consequence types the ladder builder will even offer you, so doing it in the other order means rebuilding ladders. Then build the types themselves.