DIGITALRISK-001™
The SAFECHAIN™ Technology-Facilitated Abuse Risk Recognition, Digital Pattern & Safeguarding Integration Framework™
Framework Reference: DIGITALRISK-001™
Framework Type: Digital Safeguarding, Domestic Abuse Risk Governance, Technology-Facilitated Abuse, Coercive Control, Evidence, Safeguarding Assessment & Systems Reform
Framework Series: SAFECHAIN™ Digital Safeguarding & Justice Integrity Series™
Parent Architecture: SAFECHAIN™ Governance Architecture™ / SAFECHAIN™ Digital Safeguarding Standard (DS-001)
Version: 1.0
Year: 2026
1. Framework Purpose
DIGITALRISK-001™ — The SAFECHAIN™ Technology-Facilitated Abuse Risk Recognition, Digital Pattern & Safeguarding Integration Framework™ establishes a structured methodology for ensuring that technology-facilitated abuse is recognised as part of the core safeguarding risk environment rather than treated as a peripheral, separate or purely “online” issue.
Technology may be used to:
monitor;
locate;
harass;
impersonate;
isolate;
threaten;
deceive;
restrict access;
gather information;
control communication;
surveil movements;
manipulate evidence;
maintain post-separation control.
Where technology operates as infrastructure within coercive control, the safeguarding assessment must examine the digital environment in which risk is created, maintained, escalated or concealed.
DIGITALRISK-001™ therefore asks:
Does the safeguarding assessment identify how technology is being used within the pattern of abuse, and does the institutional response address the digital mechanisms through which risk is created or sustained?
2. Digital Safeguarding Risk™
SAFECHAIN™ defines Digital Safeguarding Risk™ as:
Risk of harm, control, surveillance, exposure, manipulation, deprivation, impersonation, evidence interference or unsafe access arising through digital technologies, devices, networks, platforms, accounts, applications, data or connected systems.
3. Technology-Facilitated Abuse Risk™
Defined as:
The use, exploitation or manipulation of technology to facilitate, intensify, conceal, extend or maintain abusive behaviour, coercive control, stalking, surveillance, intimidation or restriction.
4. Digital Pattern Integrity™
Defined as:
The preservation and analysis of technology-related behaviours as part of the wider pattern of coercion rather than as isolated digital incidents.
5. Key Question
Does the safeguarding assessment identify how technology is being used within the pattern of abuse, and does the institutional response address the digital mechanisms through which risk is created or sustained?
6. Core Architecture
Digital Signal → Pattern Recognition → Risk Classification → Digital Exposure Assessment → Safeguarding Response → Protective Action → Verification
Expanded:
Digital Signal → Device / Account / Platform Context → Pattern Recognition → Coercive Function → Risk Classification → Evidence Preservation → Exposure Assessment → Safeguarding Decision → Protective Response → Implementation → Monitoring → Verification
7. Core Principle
Technology-facilitated abuse should not be assessed as a separate category of “online behaviour” where it forms part of the mechanism through which coercive control, stalking, intimidation or safeguarding risk is exercised.
8. SAFECHAIN™ Digital Risk Integrity Architecture™
DRI1 — Signal
Identify technology-related indicators.
DRI2 — Context
Determine device, account, platform and relationship context.
DRI3 — Pattern
Assess whether incidents form part of a wider coercive pattern.
DRI4 — Function
Identify what the technology enables the abusive actor to do.
DRI5 — Exposure
Determine what access, permissions or data create risk.
DRI6 — Evidence
Preserve relevant digital evidence safely.
DRI7 — Response
Design safeguarding intervention around the actual digital mechanism.
DRI8 — Implementation
Ensure protective action is delivered.
DRI9 — Monitoring
Assess whether digital risk continues or migrates.
DRI10 — Verification
Confirm that digital exposure has been sufficiently reduced.
9. Digital Risk Signal™
A Digital Risk Signal™ may include:
unusual account activity;
unexplained location knowledge;
repeated password changes;
unknown device access;
unwanted contact across multiple platforms;
impersonation;
message falsification;
tracking alerts;
smart-home manipulation;
account lockout;
technology deprivation;
covert recording;
device tampering;
spyware indicators;
repeated digital harassment.
10. Signal Recognition Integrity™
Digital safeguarding systems should recognise both explicit disclosures and indirect technological indicators.
11. Digital Signal Loss™
Defined as:
Failure to identify or preserve technology-related information that could materially affect safeguarding assessment.
12. Digital Blind Spot™
Defined as:
A safeguarding assessment that examines interpersonal behaviour while failing sufficiently to assess the digital systems through which that behaviour is enabled or extended.
13. Digital Blind Spot Test™
Ask:
What devices, accounts, permissions, networks or technologies could materially change the safeguarding assessment if examined?
14. Online–Offline Distinction Failure™
Technology-facilitated abuse often crosses physical and digital environments.
15. Digital–Physical Continuity Principle™
Digital conduct should be assessed according to the real-world safeguarding effect it produces, not solely according to the medium through which it occurs.
16. Digital Coercive Function™
The relevant question is not merely:
What technology was used?
but:
What coercive function did the technology perform?
17. Digital Coercive Function Categories™
DF1 — Surveillance
Monitoring communications, devices, activity or behaviour.
DF2 — Tracking
Locating or predicting physical movement.
DF3 — Harassment
Persistent unwanted contact or communication.
DF4 — Impersonation
Using another person's identity, accounts or communications.
DF5 — Restriction
Limiting access to devices, accounts, communications or services.
DF6 — Manipulation
Altering, deleting, fabricating or distorting digital information.
DF7 — Intimidation
Using technology to threaten or demonstrate continued access or control.
DF8 — Isolation
Restricting digital connection to support networks, services or information.
DF9 — Exposure
Publishing or threatening to publish private information, images or data.
DF10 — Remote Control
Manipulating connected devices or systems from a distance.
18. Function-over-Platform Principle™
Safeguarding assessment should focus on what the technology enables, not merely which platform or device was involved.
19. Platform Substitution Risk™
Abuse may migrate from one platform to another.
20. Platform Migration™
Defined as:
Movement of technology-facilitated abusive behaviour across devices, applications, accounts or services after access to one route is blocked.
21. No-Blocked-Account-Equals-Resolved-Risk Principle™
Blocking one account does not demonstrate that the digital safeguarding risk has ended.
22. Digital Control Migration™
Technology-based control may move across:
Messaging → Email → Social Media → Shared Accounts → Smart Devices → Location Services
23. CONTROLMIGRATION-001™ Integration
Digital risk should be assessed for migration rather than treated as resolved when one channel closes.
24. Device Integrity Assessment™
Safeguarding assessment should consider:
smartphones;
tablets;
laptops;
smart watches;
connected vehicles;
smart-home devices;
cameras;
doorbells;
trackers;
shared family devices.
25. Device Access Test™
Ask:
Who has physical, remote or administrative access to the device?
26. Account Integrity Assessment™
Assess:
account ownership;
recovery methods;
linked email addresses;
trusted devices;
active sessions;
shared credentials;
delegated access;
family-sharing arrangements.
27. Permission Integrity™
Many digital risks arise from permissions.
28. Permission Risk Map™
Assess access to:
location;
microphone;
camera;
contacts;
messages;
cloud storage;
calendars;
financial apps;
photographs;
health information;
authentication systems.
29. Permission Persistence Risk™
Permissions granted legitimately during a relationship may remain active after circumstances change.
30. Historic Consent–Current Access Distinction™
Past permission does not automatically establish current informed consent to continued access.
31. Consent Integrity™ Integration
Digital access should be assessed against current meaningful consent.
32. Shared Account Risk™
Shared accounts may create hidden exposure after separation or conflict.
33. Authentication Dependency Risk™
A person's digital safety may depend upon:
phone number;
recovery email;
shared device;
trusted account;
password manager.
34. Authentication Control Test™
Ask:
Can another person reset, recover or regain access to this account?
35. Location Exposure™
Location can be inferred through:
GPS;
shared apps;
family location tools;
photographs;
metadata;
transport apps;
vehicle systems;
smart devices.
36. Location Risk Test™
Ask:
What digital systems can reveal current, future or habitual location?
37. Location Permission Audit™
Review:
Application → Access Level → Sharing Recipient → Necessity → Risk
38. Metadata Exposure™
Digital content may reveal information beyond what the user intends.
39. Metadata Risk™
Defined as:
Safeguarding risk arising from contextual data embedded in or associated with digital activity, including time, location, device and account information.
40. Smart-Home Risk™
Connected homes may create remote access to:
locks;
lights;
heating;
cameras;
speakers;
alarms;
doorbells;
appliances.
41. Smart-Home Control Test™
Ask:
Who has administrative access to every connected device in the home?
42. Smart-Home Dependency Risk™
Protective housing may remain digitally unsafe where device ownership or credentials have not changed.
43. Digital Safe-Home Principle™
Physical relocation should not automatically be treated as safe relocation where digital access continues to reveal or influence the survivor's environment.
44. Communication Integrity™
Technology-facilitated abuse may interfere with communication.
45. Communication Manipulation™
Includes:
deletion;
impersonation;
spoofing;
false messages;
account takeover;
blocking support contacts.
46. Message Authenticity Risk™
Safeguarding professionals should consider whether communications relied upon may have been manipulated or sent by another person.
47. Digital Evidence Integrity™ Integration
Digital evidence should preserve provenance, authenticity, context and chain of custody where appropriate.
48. Evidence Preservation™
Digital evidence may include:
screenshots;
messages;
emails;
logs;
device alerts;
account activity;
photographs;
video;
audio;
location history;
platform records.
49. Evidence Preservation Risk™
Evidence may be lost through:
deletion;
account closure;
device replacement;
platform retention limits;
automatic overwrite;
remote access.
50. Evidence Safety Principle™
Evidence preservation should not create additional safeguarding exposure.
51. Evidence Collection Burden™
Survivors should not automatically become solely responsible for technical evidence collection.
52. No-Survivor-as-Digital-Forensics-Team Principle™
Institutional safeguarding should not depend entirely upon the affected person having the technical knowledge, capacity or safety required to investigate digital abuse alone.
53. Digital Evidence Burden Test™
Ask:
What evidence can the institution reasonably secure itself rather than requiring the survivor to produce?
54. Evidence–Risk Balance™
Evidence collection should be balanced against:
safety;
privacy;
discovery risk;
trauma;
technical capability.
55. Survivor Privacy by Design™ Integration
Digital safeguarding interventions should minimise unnecessary exposure.
56. Privacy–Protection Balance™
Protection may require information sharing.
But information sharing should remain:
necessary;
proportionate;
secure;
purpose-limited.
57. Data Exposure Risk™
Safeguarding systems themselves may create risk through poor handling of:
addresses;
contact information;
location;
case data;
safety plans;
device details.
58. Safe Contact Integrity™
Institutions should establish:
safe number;
safe email;
safe time;
safe device;
safe communication channel.
59. Safe Contact Assumption Risk™
A contact method previously used should not automatically be assumed safe.
60. Safe Contact Test™
Ask:
Can the institution contact this person without exposing the contact itself to the source of risk?
61. Account Takeover Risk™
Digital safeguarding assessment should consider unauthorised account control.
62. Account Takeover Indicators™
Include:
unexpected password reset;
new trusted device;
unfamiliar login;
altered recovery details;
unexplained messages;
account lockout.
63. Device Compromise Risk™
A compromised device may undermine multiple protective actions.
64. Device Trust Classification™
DT1 — Trusted
DT2 — Probably Trusted
DT3 — Uncertain
DT4 — Suspected Compromise
DT5 — Known / High-Risk Compromise
65. No-Device-Equals-Neutral-Tool Principle™
A device used for seeking help may itself form part of the risk environment.
66. Digital Exit Planning™
Leaving or separating may require a digital safety transition.
67. Digital Exit Risk™
Defined as:
Risk arising when changes to accounts, devices, permissions or location access alert the abusive actor to separation, relocation or help-seeking.
68. Stealth Mode™ Integration
Protective digital changes may need to account for discovery risk.
69. Digital Change Sequencing™
Potential sequence:
Assess → Preserve Evidence → Secure Safe Device → Change Recovery Access → Remove Permissions → Secure Accounts → Review Location Exposure
depending upon circumstances.
70. No-Universal-Digital-Safety-Sequence Principle™
Digital safety actions should be tailored to risk because abrupt changes can sometimes increase danger.
71. Quick Exit™ Integration
Digital safeguarding design should enable safe and rapid disengagement where appropriate.
72. Journal Lock™ Integration
Sensitive survivor-generated information should be protected from unauthorised access.
73. Post-Separation Digital Risk™
Technology may preserve access after physical separation.
74. Post-Separation Access Test™
Ask:
Which digital connections remain active despite the end of cohabitation or relationship?
75. Legacy Access™
Defined as:
Digital access retained through credentials, permissions, shared services or connected systems established before separation.
76. Legacy Access Register™
Track high-risk persistent access requiring review.
77. Digital Dependency™
A survivor may depend on shared technology for:
banking;
transport;
communication;
housing;
work;
childcare;
healthcare.
78. Digital Dependency Risk™
Protective intervention that simply removes access may create new vulnerability.
79. No-Disconnect-Equals-Safety Principle™
Removing technology access may reduce one risk while increasing isolation, financial exclusion or service-access risk.
80. Digital Safety–Digital Inclusion Balance™
Safeguarding should preserve necessary access wherever possible.
81. Economic Abuse Integration™
Technology may facilitate economic control through:
banking apps;
authentication;
shared payment systems;
account monitoring;
subscription control.
82. Financial Technology Risk Test™
Ask:
Can another person observe, restrict, alter or interfere with the survivor's financial technology?
83. Digital Identity Risk™
Abusive actors may misuse identity data.
84. Identity Integrity Test™
Assess exposure of:
passwords;
identification;
security questions;
financial details;
email access;
phone number;
authentication codes.
85. Impersonation Risk™
Impersonation may affect:
family;
employers;
police;
courts;
services;
social networks.
86. Impersonation Safeguarding Test™
Ask:
What decisions or relationships could be manipulated if communications are falsely attributed to the survivor?
87. Digital Deception Risk™
Technology may be used to falsify or manipulate information.
88. Deception-to-Institution Risk™
Institutions may themselves become recipients of manipulated digital evidence.
89. Institutional Authenticity Test™
Ask:
What verification is required before relying upon high-impact digital communications or records?
90. AI-Generated Content Risk™
Synthetic content may complicate authenticity assessment.
91. AI Manipulation Alert™
Potential indicators:
synthetic audio;
altered imagery;
fabricated messages;
manipulated screenshots;
generated identities.
92. Digital Evidence Verification Principle™
The higher the consequence of relying upon disputed digital evidence, the stronger the need for proportionate authenticity assessment.
93. Platform Governance Risk™
Institutional response may depend upon technology providers.
94. Platform Dependency™
Platforms may control:
logs;
account suspension;
data retention;
access recovery;
evidence preservation.
95. Platform Dependency Test™
Ask:
What safeguarding action depends upon a private platform, and what happens if that platform does not respond?
96. DEPENDENCYRISK-001™ Integration
Critical digital safeguarding should identify provider dependencies.
97. Interoperability Risk™
Digital risk information may not move effectively between safeguarding systems.
98. Digital Interface Failure™
Defined as:
Loss, distortion or delay of material digital safeguarding information between systems, teams or institutions.
99. CHAININTEGRITY-001™ Integration
Digital safeguarding should preserve the chain:
Signal → Interpretation → Ownership → Intervention → Implementation → Escalation → Verification
100. Digital Safeguarding Chain Break™
Examples include:
alert generated but ignored;
disclosure recorded but not assessed;
evidence collected but not reviewed;
tracker found but location risk not addressed;
referral made but no technical support delivered;
account compromise identified but no safe-contact change made.
101. Digital Risk Ownership™
Every material digital safeguarding issue requires ownership.
102. Digital Risk Owner™
Defined as:
The person or function accountable for ensuring that identified digital safeguarding risk progresses into appropriate protective action.
103. Digital Ownership Gap™
Defined as:
A gap where digital risk is recognised but responsibility for acting upon it is unclear.
104. Specialist Referral Risk™
Digital abuse may be referred to specialist technical support.
Referral should not create an ownership void.
105. No-Specialist-Referral-Equals-Responsibility-Transferred Principle™
Specialist referral does not automatically remove safeguarding responsibility from the originating institution.
106. Digital Risk Classification™
DR1 — Low
Limited digital exposure with low foreseeable safeguarding impact.
DR2 — Emerging
Indicators of technology-enabled control or intrusion.
DR3 — Material
Digital activity materially contributes to coercion, monitoring or harm.
DR4 — Serious
Technology materially enables stalking, restriction, intimidation or serious safeguarding exposure.
DR5 — Critical
Digital mechanisms create immediate or severe risk, including significant location, surveillance, threat or violence-related exposure.
107. Digital Pattern Classification™
DP1 — Isolated
DP2 — Repeated
DP3 — Coordinated
DP4 — Persistent Coercive Pattern
DP5 — Escalating / High-Risk Pattern
108. Digital Exposure Classification™
DE1 — Limited
DE2 — Manageable
DE3 — Significant
DE4 — Extensive
DE5 — Critical / Systemic Access
109. Digital Risk Matrix™
Combine:
Risk Severity × Pattern × Exposure
110. Digital Escalation Trigger™
Potential triggers include:
covert surveillance;
persistent location tracking;
repeated account compromise;
impersonation;
technology-enabled stalking;
escalating threats;
interference with protective services;
evidence manipulation;
smart-home control.
111. ESCALATION-001™ Integration
Digital risk should activate escalation where severity or recurrence warrants it.
112. Digital Risk Normalisation™
Repeated technological abuse may become minimised as routine communication conflict.
113. RISKNORMALISATION-001™ Integration
Repeated digital harassment or monitoring should not lose significance merely because it is frequent.
114. “Just Online” Minimisation™
Defined as:
The reduction of safeguarding significance because abusive behaviour occurs through digital rather than physical means.
115. Medium-Minimisation Fallacy™
The medium through which abuse occurs does not determine the seriousness of its safeguarding effect.
116. Digital Cumulative Harm™
Repeated digital intrusion may create cumulative harm through:
constant vigilance;
loss of privacy;
sleep disruption;
social isolation;
fear;
restricted movement;
reduced autonomy.
117. CUMULATIVEHARM-001™ Integration
Technology-related incidents should be assessed cumulatively where connected.
118. Digital Pattern–Physical Risk Integration™
Digital conduct may indicate or increase physical-world danger.
119. Cross-Domain Risk Test™
Ask:
What physical, financial, emotional or safety consequences arise from the digital behaviour?
120. Digital Risk Migration™
Risk may move between domains.
Example:
Location Tracking → Physical Following → Threat → Forced Relocation
121. Digital Risk Escalation Pathway™
Access → Monitoring → Surveillance → Restriction → Threat → Location Exposure → Physical Risk
This is not assumed to occur in every case; it is a pathway requiring evidence-based assessment.
122. Safeguarding Assessment Integration™
Technology questions should be embedded in routine risk assessment where relevant.
123. Core Digital Safeguarding Questions™
Assess:
Who has access to your devices?
Who knows or controls passwords?
Is location sharing active?
Are accounts shared?
Have unknown logins occurred?
Are connected-home devices present?
Has technology been used to threaten or monitor?
Has anyone impersonated you digitally?
Is there a safe device for help-seeking?
Could changing settings increase immediate risk?
124. Digital Risk Assessment Integrity Test™
Ask:
Could material technology-enabled abuse be missed by the current safeguarding assessment tool?
125. Assessment Tool Gap™
Defined as:
The difference between technology-facilitated risk actually present and the digital risk factors systematically examined by institutional assessment.
126. Assessment Modernisation Trigger™
Where digital abuse patterns evolve, assessment tools should be reviewed.
127. Digital Safeguarding Maturity Model™ Integration
Organisations should assess maturity across:
recognition;
capability;
technical support;
evidence;
privacy;
response;
assurance.
128. Digital Safeguarding Capability™
Institutions require appropriate competence.
129. Capability Domains™
Include:
digital risk recognition;
safe account practices;
technology abuse indicators;
digital evidence preservation;
privacy;
specialist escalation.
130. SAFEGUARDCAPACITY-001™ Integration
Digital safeguarding expectations must be matched by operational capability.
131. Capability Gap™
Defined as:
The difference between digital safeguarding risk the institution is expected to manage and the expertise, authority, systems or resources available to manage it.
132. Digital Overconfidence Risk™
Staff may assume ordinary digital literacy is sufficient for complex safeguarding risk.
133. Specialist Escalation Threshold™
Institutions should define when specialist technical input is required.
134. Trauma-Informed Digital Design™ Integration
Digital safeguarding interventions should minimise unnecessary retraumatisation and complexity.
135. Digital Intervention Burden™
Protective advice may require survivors to:
reset numerous accounts;
replace devices;
preserve evidence;
contact platforms;
update security.
This burden may be substantial.
136. Digital Remediation Burden Test™
Ask:
Is the affected person being required to perform an unreasonable amount of technical remediation to correct risk created by abuse?
137. Digital Safety Support Principle™
Where digital remediation is complex, safeguarding systems should provide practical support rather than advice alone wherever reasonably possible.
138. Access-to-Digital-Safety Integrity™
Digital safety support should itself be accessible.
139. ACCESSFAILURE-001™ Integration
Consider:
technical literacy;
disability;
language;
cost;
device access;
connectivity;
trauma.
140. Digital Remedy Integrity™
A digital safeguard should be tested for effectiveness.
141. REMEDYINTEGRITY-001™ Integration
Ask:
Did the digital intervention actually reduce the exposure or merely change settings?
142. Digital Implementation Integrity™
Protective changes should be verified.
143. IMPLEMENTATIONGAP-001™ Integration
Example:
Recommended: secure account
Actual: password changed
Remaining: recovery email still controlled by abusive actor
The intervention is incomplete.
144. Digital Residual Risk™
Defined as:
Material technology-related exposure remaining after protective action.
145. Residual Digital Risk Test™
Ask:
What digital access or exposure still exists after remediation?
146. Digital Closure Integrity™
Digital risk should not be closed solely because a particular device or account was addressed.
147. SAFEGUARDCLOSURE-001™ Integration
Closure should consider:
remaining access;
migration;
recurrence;
monitoring;
dependency.
148. Digital Reopening Trigger™
Reassess where:
new account compromise occurs;
tracker discovered;
new impersonation;
unexplained location knowledge;
digital harassment resumes;
protective settings fail.
149. Digital Risk Recurrence™
Repeated digital abuse after remediation may indicate hidden access or incomplete control.
150. RECURRINGFAILURE-001™ Integration
Recurring digital risk should trigger deeper structural analysis.
151. Digital Risk Register™
Record:
digital signal;
device/account;
coercive function;
DR classification;
DP pattern;
DE exposure;
owner;
action;
residual risk;
verification.
152. Digital Access Register™
Record high-risk active permissions and account connections.
153. Device Trust Register™
Record critical devices and DT1–DT5 trust classifications.
154. Digital Safeguarding Action Register™
Record:
required action;
owner;
deadline;
evidence;
implementation status;
verification.
155. Digital Evidence Register™
Record:
evidence type;
source;
preservation method;
integrity considerations;
access controls.
156. Digital Residual Risk Register™
Record unresolved digital exposure after intervention.
157. SAFECHAIN™ Digital Risk Dashboard™
Monitor:
DR4–DR5 risks;
DE4–DE5 exposures;
DT4–DT5 device concerns;
repeated account compromise;
location exposure;
unresolved implementation actions;
recurring digital abuse;
digital ownership gaps.
158. Digital Safeguarding Metrics™
Potential measures include:
Digital Risk Assessment Completion Rate™
High-Risk Digital Exposure Rate™
Time-to-Digital-Safeguard™
Digital Implementation Verification Rate™
Digital Recurrence Rate™
Digital Ownership Gap Rate™
159. Time-to-Digital-Safeguard™
Defined as:
The period between recognition of material digital risk and effective implementation of proportionate digital protective action.
160. Digital Protective Verification Rate™
Measures the proportion of high-risk digital interventions verified as operating effectively.
161. Digital Risk Governance Review™
Senior safeguarding governance should review:
serious digital risk;
recurring surveillance;
location exposure;
technological control;
unresolved capability gaps;
digital chain failures.
162. Digital Risk Pattern Analysis™
Institutions should analyse trends across cases rather than treating each technology incident in isolation.
163. Digital Root-Cause Analysis™
Where response fails, assess whether cause involved:
assessment;
knowledge;
technology;
ownership;
referral;
evidence;
privacy;
implementation;
monitoring.
164. Digital Safeguarding Stress Test™
Scenario A — Survivor Relocates
Can location still be discovered digitally?
Scenario B — Password Changed
Can account recovery restore abusive access?
Scenario C — Phone Replaced
Do shared cloud services persist?
Scenario D — Tracker Removed
Are other tracking mechanisms present?
Scenario E — Account Blocked
Does abuse migrate elsewhere?
Scenario F — Safe Contact Used
Could the contact channel be monitored?
Scenario G — Evidence Preserved
Did preservation create new exposure?
165. Digital Fresh-Eyes Test™
Ask:
If this technology pattern were assessed alongside the full coercive-control context for the first time today, would the risk classification change?
166. Digital Reality Test™
Ask:
What technology access does the abusive actor actually possess today?
167. Digital Exposure Counterfactual™
Ask:
If the abusive actor knew every permission, device and account connection still active, what could they do?
168. Digital Safeguarding Integrity Gate™
Before concluding assessment verify:
✓ devices considered
✓ accounts considered
✓ permissions considered
✓ location exposure considered
✓ technology pattern assessed
✓ evidence risk considered
169. Digital Pattern Gate™
Verify:
✓ incidents aggregated
✓ coercive function identified
✓ physical-world consequences assessed
✓ migration considered
✓ recurrence considered
170. Digital Intervention Gate™
Verify:
✓ protective action matches mechanism
✓ discovery risk considered
✓ survivor access preserved
✓ technical feasibility confirmed
✓ owner identified
171. Digital Evidence Gate™
Verify:
✓ evidence preserved where necessary
✓ integrity maintained
✓ privacy protected
✓ burden proportionate
✓ access controlled
172. Digital Implementation Gate™
Verify:
✓ changes actually made
✓ access removed where required
✓ recovery routes secured
✓ dependencies reviewed
✓ residual exposure identified
173. Digital Verification Gate™
Verify:
✓ protection operates
✓ recurrence monitored
✓ residual risk classified
✓ safe-contact route remains valid
✓ reopening triggers established
174. No-Online-Equals-Low-Risk Principle™
Digital abuse should not be treated as lower risk simply because it occurs through technology.
175. No-Device-Reset-Equals-Safety Principle™
Resetting or replacing a device does not establish that linked accounts, cloud services or permissions are secure.
176. No-Password-Change-Equals-Account-Security Principle™
A changed password does not guarantee safety where account recovery or trusted-device access remains compromised.
177. No-Blocked-User-Equals-End-of-Abuse Principle™
Blocking one communication route does not prove that technology-facilitated abuse has ended.
178. No-Tracking-Alert-Equals-Tracking-Resolved Principle™
Detecting tracking does not itself remove the safeguarding exposure created by it.
179. No-Screenshot-Equals-Complete-Evidence Principle™
A screenshot may capture information but may not preserve all relevant authenticity, metadata or contextual evidence.
180. No-Digital-Literacy-Equals-Digital-Safeguarding-Competence Principle™
General familiarity with technology is not equivalent to specialist safeguarding competence.
181. No-Technical-Fix-Equals-Safeguarding-Outcome Principle™
A technical intervention is only effective if it materially reduces the safeguarding risk.
182. DIGITALRISK-001™ Integrity Test
An institution should be able to demonstrate that:
Digital Safeguarding Risk™ is defined.
Technology-Facilitated Abuse Risk™ is recognised.
digital behaviour is integrated into wider safeguarding assessment.
online conduct is assessed for real-world effect.
Digital Pattern Integrity™ is preserved.
digital risk signals are recognised.
Digital Signal Loss™ is identifiable.
Digital Blind Spots™ are assessed.
digital and physical risk are connected.
coercive function is identified.
DF1–DF10 function categories can be applied.
function is prioritised over platform.
platform migration is considered.
digital control migration is considered.
device access is assessed.
account access is assessed.
permission exposure is assessed.
historic consent is distinguished from current access.
shared account risk is considered.
authentication dependency is assessed.
location exposure is assessed.
metadata risk is recognised.
smart-home risk is considered.
physical relocation is not equated automatically with digital safety.
communication manipulation is recognised.
message authenticity risk is considered.
digital evidence integrity is preserved.
evidence preservation risk is considered.
evidence collection does not create unnecessary danger.
survivors are not expected automatically to conduct digital forensics alone.
privacy is integrated.
safe contact methods are verified.
account takeover indicators are recognised.
device compromise is assessed.
DT1–DT5 device classifications can be applied.
digital exit risk is considered.
discovery risk from account changes is assessed.
digital remediation is sequenced according to risk.
post-separation access is reviewed.
Legacy Access™ is identified.
digital dependency is considered.
safety actions do not unnecessarily create digital exclusion.
financial technology risk is assessed.
digital identity risk is considered.
impersonation risk is assessed.
digital deception risk is recognised.
institutions consider authenticity of high-impact digital material.
AI-generated manipulation is considered where relevant.
platform dependencies are identified.
Digital Interface Failure™ is identifiable.
digital safeguarding chain integrity is assessed.
digital chain breaks are visible.
digital risk has an owner.
ownership gaps are identifiable.
specialist referrals do not create responsibility voids.
DR1–DR5 classification operates.
DP1–DP5 pattern classification operates.
DE1–DE5 exposure classification operates.
digital escalation triggers exist.
repeated digital abuse is not normalised.
“just online” minimisation is challenged.
cumulative digital harm is considered.
digital behaviour is assessed for physical-world consequences.
digital risk migration is considered.
routine safeguarding assessment contains proportionate digital questions.
assessment-tool gaps are identified.
assessment tools can be modernised.
digital safeguarding maturity is assessed.
staff capability is proportionate to expected risk.
Capability Gaps™ are identified.
specialist escalation thresholds exist.
digital interventions are trauma-informed.
remediation burden is assessed.
practical support is available where appropriate.
access barriers to digital safety are considered.
digital remedies are tested for effectiveness.
digital implementation is verified.
residual digital risk is assessed.
closure considers migration and recurrence.
reopening triggers exist.
recurrence triggers deeper analysis.
Digital Risk Register™ exists.
Digital Access Register™ can be maintained where appropriate.
Device Trust Register™ exists where relevant.
Digital Safeguarding Action Register™ exists.
Digital Evidence Register™ exists.
Digital Residual Risk Register™ exists.
Digital Risk Dashboard™ operates.
Time-to-Digital-Safeguard™ can be measured.
digital protective verification is monitored.
senior governance reviews high-risk digital cases and patterns.
root causes of digital response failure are analysed.
Digital Safeguarding Stress Test™ operates.
Digital Fresh-Eyes Test™ operates.
Digital Reality Test™ operates.
Digital Exposure Counterfactual™ can be used.
Digital Safeguarding Integrity Gate™ operates.
Digital Pattern Gate™ operates.
Digital Intervention Gate™ operates.
Digital Evidence Gate™ operates.
Digital Implementation Gate™ operates.
Digital Verification Gate™ operates.
And ultimately:
Can the institution demonstrate that it recognised technology not simply as a medium of communication, but as a potential infrastructure of coercion, surveillance, restriction and safeguarding risk—and that its response actually reduced the digital mechanisms through which harm could continue?
183. Framework Outcomes
Implementation establishes:
✓ Digital Safeguarding Risk™
✓ Technology-Facilitated Abuse Risk™
✓ Digital Pattern Integrity™
✓ SAFECHAIN™ Digital Risk Integrity Architecture™
✓ Digital Risk Signal™
✓ Digital Signal Loss™
✓ Digital Blind Spot™
✓ Digital–Physical Continuity Principle™
✓ Digital Coercive Function™
✓ DF1–DF10 Digital Coercive Function Categories™
✓ Function-over-Platform Principle™
✓ Platform Migration™
✓ Digital Control Migration™
✓ Device Integrity Assessment™
✓ Account Integrity Assessment™
✓ Permission Integrity™
✓ Permission Risk Map™
✓ Permission Persistence Risk™
✓ Historic Consent–Current Access Distinction™
✓ Authentication Dependency Risk™
✓ Location Exposure™
✓ Metadata Risk™
✓ Smart-Home Risk™
✓ Digital Safe-Home Principle™
✓ Communication Manipulation™
✓ Message Authenticity Risk™
✓ Evidence Preservation Risk™
✓ Evidence Safety Principle™
✓ No-Survivor-as-Digital-Forensics-Team Principle™
✓ Survivor Privacy by Design™ Integration
✓ Safe Contact Integrity™
✓ Account Takeover Risk™
✓ Device Compromise Risk™
✓ DT1–DT5 Device Trust Classification™
✓ Digital Exit Risk™
✓ Digital Change Sequencing™
✓ Legacy Access™
✓ Digital Dependency Risk™
✓ Digital Safety–Digital Inclusion Balance™
✓ Financial Technology Risk™
✓ Digital Identity Risk™
✓ Impersonation Risk™
✓ Digital Deception Risk™
✓ Institutional Authenticity Test™
✓ AI Manipulation Alert™
✓ Platform Dependency™
✓ Digital Interface Failure™
✓ Digital Safeguarding Chain Break™
✓ Digital Risk Owner™
✓ Digital Ownership Gap™
✓ DR1–DR5 Digital Risk Classification™
✓ DP1–DP5 Digital Pattern Classification™
✓ DE1–DE5 Digital Exposure Classification™
✓ Digital Risk Matrix™
✓ Digital Escalation Trigger™
✓ “Just Online” Minimisation™
✓ Medium-Minimisation Fallacy™
✓ Digital Cumulative Harm™
✓ Cross-Domain Risk Test™
✓ Digital Risk Migration™
✓ Digital Risk Assessment Integrity Test™
✓ Assessment Tool Gap™
✓ Assessment Modernisation Trigger™
✓ Digital Safeguarding Capability™
✓ Capability Gap™
✓ Digital Intervention Burden™
✓ Digital Remediation Burden Test™
✓ Digital Safety Support Principle™
✓ Digital Residual Risk™
✓ Digital Reopening Trigger™
✓ Digital Risk Register™
✓ Digital Access Register™
✓ Device Trust Register™
✓ Digital Safeguarding Action Register™
✓ Digital Evidence Register™
✓ Digital Residual Risk Register™
✓ SAFECHAIN™ Digital Risk Dashboard™
✓ Time-to-Digital-Safeguard™
✓ Digital Protective Verification Rate™
✓ Digital Risk Governance Review™
✓ Digital Risk Pattern Analysis™
✓ Digital Root-Cause Analysis™
✓ Digital Safeguarding Stress Test™
✓ Digital Fresh-Eyes Test™
✓ Digital Reality Test™
✓ Digital Exposure Counterfactual™
✓ Digital Safeguarding Integrity Gate™
✓ Digital Pattern Gate™
✓ Digital Intervention Gate™
✓ Digital Evidence Gate™
✓ Digital Implementation Gate™
✓ Digital Verification Gate™
✓ DIGITALRISK-001™ Integrity Test™
184. Cross-Framework Integration
DIGITALRISK-001™ should operate alongside:
CHAININTEGRITY-001™ — end-to-end safeguarding chain.
Digital Evidence Integrity™ — authenticity, provenance and preservation.
Survivor Privacy by Design™ — privacy-preserving safeguarding.
Consent Integrity™ — current and meaningful consent to access.
Stealth Mode™ — discovery-sensitive digital safety.
Quick Exit™ — rapid safe disengagement.
Journal Lock™ — protection of survivor-generated content.
Trauma-Informed Digital Design™ — reduced burden and re-traumatisation.
Digital Safeguarding Maturity Model™ — organisational capability.
SAFECHAIN™ Digital Safeguarding Standard (DS-001) — overarching digital safeguarding standard.
CUMULATIVEHARM-001™ — accumulated digital harm.
CONTROLMIGRATION-001™ — migration of control mechanisms.
ESCALATION-001™ — escalation of material digital risk.
RISKNORMALISATION-001™ — preventing repeated digital harm becoming minimised.
IMPLEMENTATIONGAP-001™ — implementation of protective digital measures.
REMEDYINTEGRITY-001™ — effectiveness of digital safeguards.
SAFEGUARDCLOSURE-001™ — closure and residual risk.
ACCESSFAILURE-001™ — digital access barriers.
SAFEGUARDCAPACITY-001™ — operational digital safeguarding capacity.
DEPENDENCYRISK-001™ — technology-provider dependencies.
RECURRINGFAILURE-001™ — recurring digital safeguarding failure.
ASSURANCEGAP-001™ — declared versus verified digital safety.
CONNECTIVITY-001™ — information continuity across systems.
INTERFACE-001™ — institutional and technical interfaces.
185. Framework Statement
Technology-facilitated abuse cannot be understood adequately if institutions treat it as a separate category of online misconduct detached from the wider pattern of coercive control. A phone can become a tracking device. A shared account can become a surveillance mechanism. A password-recovery route can restore control after separation. A smart home can permit remote intrusion. A fabricated message can manipulate institutional decision-making. And a safety intervention can fail if the device used to seek help is itself compromised. DIGITALRISK-001™ establishes the SAFECHAIN™ architecture for identifying digital risk signals, analysing their coercive function, mapping devices, accounts and permissions, preserving evidence safely, integrating digital information into safeguarding assessment, designing proportionate protective responses and verifying that the technological mechanisms enabling harm have actually been reduced rather than merely moved elsewhere.
186. Copyright & Intellectual Property Notice
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All Rights Reserved.
DIGITALRISK-001™ — The SAFECHAIN™ Technology-Facilitated Abuse Risk Recognition, Digital Pattern & Safeguarding Integration Framework™ is an original digital-safeguarding, risk-governance, coercive-control, evidence-integrity and systems-reform framework developed and authored by Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA, Founder of SAFECHAIN™.
DIGITALRISK-001™ forms part of the wider SAFECHAIN™ Governance Architecture™, SAFECHAIN™ Digital Safeguarding Architecture™ and SAFECHAIN™ Digital Safeguarding Standard (DS-001).
The original expression, selection, arrangement and combination of the framework's terminology, architecture, classifications, tests, registers, governance controls, digital-risk methodology and safeguarding mechanisms constitute proprietary intellectual property to the extent protected by applicable law.
Protected elements include, where original to this framework, Digital Safeguarding Risk™, Technology-Facilitated Abuse Risk™, Digital Pattern Integrity™, SAFECHAIN™ Digital Risk Integrity Architecture™, Digital Risk Signal™, Digital Signal Loss™, Digital Blind Spot™, Digital–Physical Continuity Principle™, Digital Coercive Function Categories™, Function-over-Platform Principle™, Platform Migration™, Digital Control Migration™, Permission Risk Map™, Permission Persistence Risk™, Historic Consent–Current Access Distinction™, Authentication Dependency Risk™, Location Exposure™, Metadata Risk™, Digital Safe-Home Principle™, Message Authenticity Risk™, Evidence Safety Principle™, No-Survivor-as-Digital-Forensics-Team Principle™, Safe Contact Integrity™, Device Trust Classification™, Digital Exit Risk™, Digital Change Sequencing™, Legacy Access™, Digital Dependency Risk™, Digital Safety–Digital Inclusion Balance™, Financial Technology Risk™, Digital Identity Risk™, Impersonation Safeguarding Test™, Digital Deception Risk™, Institutional Authenticity Test™, AI Manipulation Alert™, Digital Interface Failure™, Digital Safeguarding Chain Break™, Digital Risk Owner™, Digital Ownership Gap™, Digital Risk Classification™, Digital Pattern Classification™, Digital Exposure Classification™, Digital Risk Matrix™, “Just Online” Minimisation™, Medium-Minimisation Fallacy™, Digital Cumulative Harm™, Cross-Domain Risk Test™, Digital Risk Migration™, Assessment Tool Gap™, Assessment Modernisation Trigger™, Digital Safeguarding Capability™, Capability Gap™, Digital Remediation Burden Test™, Digital Safety Support Principle™, Digital Residual Risk™, Digital Risk Register™, Digital Access Register™, Device Trust Register™, Digital Safeguarding Action Register™, Digital Evidence Register™, Digital Residual Risk Register™, SAFECHAIN™ Digital Risk Dashboard™, Time-to-Digital-Safeguard™, Digital Safeguarding Stress Test™, Digital Fresh-Eyes Test™, Digital Reality Test™, Digital Exposure Counterfactual™, Digital Safeguarding Integrity Gate™, Digital Pattern Gate™, Digital Intervention Gate™, Digital Evidence Gate™, Digital Implementation Gate™, Digital Verification Gate™ and DIGITALRISK-001™ Integrity Test™, together with associated implementation materials.
No part of the framework may be reproduced, republished, substantially adapted, distributed, commercially exploited or incorporated into another proprietary digital-safeguarding, governance, risk, technology, domestic-abuse, audit, assurance, accreditation, certification, consultancy, artificial-intelligence, analytics, training or software methodology without prior written permission from the applicable rights holder, except as permitted by applicable law.
Publication or citation does not transfer ownership of SAFECHAIN™ intellectual property or confer authority to issue SAFECHAIN™ assessments, classifications, validations, certifications, accreditations or institutional findings.
References to generally established concepts concerning technology-facilitated abuse, cyber safety, stalking, surveillance, account security, digital forensics, coercive control, digital privacy, safeguarding, information security and risk assessment do not constitute claims of ownership over those underlying concepts. Proprietary claims relate to original SAFECHAIN™ expression, terminology, architecture, selection, arrangement and methodology to the extent protected by applicable law.
DIGITALRISK-001™ is an analytical and governance framework. Identification of digital risk, suspected device compromise, surveillance, account access or other safeguarding concern does not itself establish criminal conduct, civil liability, negligence, statutory breach or professional misconduct. Such conclusions require determination under the applicable evidential, legal, regulatory and professional framework.
Author and Framework Developer:
Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder — SAFECHAIN™
Framework Reference: DIGITALRISK-001™
Version: 1.0
Year: 2026
© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All Rights Reserved.