modules/adeguati-assetti/references/professional-method.md

# Professional basis and method

Select and verify current primary and professional sources for the actual entity,
period and question. The following are research starting points, not a certified
current rulepack or a mandatory exhaustive checklist:

- Civil Code article 2086: https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1942-03-16;262
- Legislative Decree 14/2019, article 3: https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:decreto.legislativo:2019-01-12;14
- CNDCEC/FNC, 25 July 2023, operational checklists:
  https://commercialisti.it/documenti-studio/assetti-organizzativi-amministrativi-e-contabili-check-list-operative/
  The methodological discussion on printed pages 4–5 was inspected on 2026-09-07.
  It supports tailoring the assessment and gathering evidence; do not reproduce
  the full checklist or treat its presence/absence answers as adequacy judgments.

Record source title, exact passage locator, URL, retrieval date and case-specific
applicability. Verify current legal wording and any sector-specific material
before relying on it. Distinguish law from professional guidance and proposed
practice. Do not freeze historical CNDCEC crisis indicators into a universal rule,
assume that an old threshold remains applicable, or introduce a DSCR formula as
an automatic adequacy result. Where current sources are inaccessible, state the
narrow limitation and withhold unsupported legal conclusions.

The professional assessment should connect evidence to a decision: identify the
arrangement, its actual use, the consequence of a weakness, what would resolve
uncertainty and a proportionate action. Consider credible contrary evidence and
working informal controls. An interview establishes what was reported; operating
samples may corroborate it, but their period and scope limit the conclusion.
Urgent issues should be surfaced promptly with their evidence and uncertainty;
Vera does not choose or initiate a statutory crisis procedure.