Service boundaries

1. Purpose of the boundary statement

This page explains the limits of Regardful's public image exposure review service. These limits are part of the service design and are intended to protect schools, pupils and Regardful.

2. Hard boundaries

• No named school scan before written authorisation.
• No login bypass, access-control bypass, private-area review or technical circumvention.
• No facial recognition.
• No face matching, facial templates, embeddings or biometric recognition.
• No child identification.
• No ethnicity, health, disability, emotion, religion or other sensitive-trait inference.
• No training of artificial intelligence models using pupil photographs.
• No legal decisions, safeguarding decisions or compliance certificates.

3. What is reviewed

Only the authorised public website scope is reviewed. This may include public pages, news posts, galleries, newsletters, prospectus-style pages, public media references and similar publicly accessible items within the agreed scope.

4. What is not reviewed

• Password-protected areas.
• Internal systems, MIS platforms, parent portals or staff-only systems.
• Social media accounts unless expressly agreed as a separate written scope.
• Third-party copies, search-engine caches or archived versions unless expressly agreed as a separate written scope.
• Any website or school not named in the written authorisation.

5. How findings should be read

Findings are review priorities. They are intended to help authorised staff decide what to inspect first. Regardful does not decide whether a pupil is at risk, whether consent exists, whether an image is lawful, or whether a school has complied with its legal duties.

6. Priority levels

• Urgent review: items that appear to deserve immediate internal attention because of context, age, exposure, detail or sensitivity indicators.
• High priority: items that appear likely to need prompt review by the school.
• Medium priority: items that may need review as part of routine retention, context or publication governance.
• Contextual: items included for awareness, trend evidence or internal record-keeping.

7. Safeguarding escalation

If the school believes an item raises a safeguarding concern, the school should use its own safeguarding process and involve the appropriate safeguarding lead or relevant authority. Regardful's report does not replace that process.

8. Image retention approach

The intended operating model avoids retaining copies of pupil images. Reports use source references and written review descriptions. Any exception must be necessary, proportionate and agreed in writing.

9. Pre-authorisation outreach

Regardful may explain the service to relevant school or trust business contacts, but will not claim findings about a named school before written authorisation.

10. Customer decision-making

The school or trust remains responsible for deciding whether to remove, update, retain, escalate or otherwise act on any item identified by Regardful.