Country Handbook methodology
How source documents are captured, checked, mapped and assessed before country-level research is presented.
Research, not certification
RegCanary organises regulatory source material and records research about requirements. A handbook is not legal advice, a legal opinion, a compliance assurance, or a certification that an organisation complies with the law. The authoritative publication remains the source issued by the relevant lawmaker, regulator or other body.
Readers must check the cited primary material, consider later changes and effective dates, assess their own activities, and obtain qualified advice where needed. A recorded check or a published page does not remove that responsibility.
On this page
Source selection and capture
Research starts by identifying the issuing authority and the source itself, with its jurisdiction, title, source type, location, language and available version or publication and effective dates. Retrieval details are recorded so a reader can distinguish the document reviewed from a later version at the same address.
Official legislation and regulator material are preferred for the proposition they control. Where an original cannot be obtained, identified or retained, a secondary summary is not treated as an equivalent original; the limitation remains a research gap for review.
Retained originals and hashes
Where capture succeeds and retention is permitted, the retrieved original is retained with its source and retrieval record. A SHA-256 digest is recorded for the captured bytes. During review, the retained bytes can be checked against that digest to establish whether they match the recorded capture.
A matching hash establishes byte-level identity with that capture only. It does not prove that a source is authoritative, legally effective, complete, correctly interpreted or still current. Retention and access may also depend on source rights and technical availability.
Change detection and currentness
Subsequent source checks compare the observed source and document identity with the retained baseline. A changed source is recorded for revalidation; a failed or unavailable check is not treated as confirmation that the prior position remains current. A prior explanation may remain visible as a dated baseline while review is pending.
An unchanged capture is a technical observation at a point in time, not proof that no legal change occurred elsewhere or that every amendment, commencement date or related instrument was found. Currentness therefore considers the source, publication and effective dates, check history and unresolved review state. Readers should re-check the definitive material before relying on it and when relevant facts or rules change.
Source review
Automated retrieval and extraction help locate material; they do not decide its legal meaning. A source review should confirm the issuing body and document identity against the retained original, examine the relevant provisions and any extraction or OCR uncertainty, and consider every affected requirement mapping.
The review decision is associated with the exact source snapshot and the mapping reviewed. If either changes, an earlier decision is not evidence that the new source or mapping was reviewed. Pending, rejected or unavailable evidence remains distinct from reviewed evidence.
Requirement mapping and applicability
A mapped requirement should point back to its source and a usable provision locator, and preserve relevant conditions, exceptions, dates and evidence expectations. RegCanary explanations are research aids and should remain distinguishable from the source wording. A missing citation or uncertain extraction is a limitation, not a basis for filling in an obligation by inference.
Applicability depends on the actual jurisdiction and legal instrument as well as the organisation's activities, products or services, customer type, business line and relevant lifecycle stage. EU-level material does not, by itself, establish how a rule applies in each country; national implementation and scope must be considered. If the available facts or evidence do not support a decision, applicability is unresolved rather than assumed.
Evidence gaps
Gaps can include missing or inaccessible originals, incomplete source history, uncertain extraction, unmapped provisions, unresolved applicability, stale review, or missing conditions and exceptions. Known gaps and scope limitations should remain visible alongside the research they qualify.
No gap record, a low gap count, or an empty result does not establish completeness. Catalogue and evidence counts describe recorded material; they are not a legal coverage measure or an assurance rating.
Publication gates
Publication is a separate decision for the specific jurisdiction and evidence package. Successful retrieval, extraction, hash verification, software tests or a passing technical validation do not, on their own, satisfy it.
Before material is presented as current research, the relevant gates include source identity and retained-evidence integrity, review of the exact source and affected mappings, support for currentness and effective dates, a defensible applicability basis, visible limitations, and the required accountable approval. Unresolved evidence or review gates should remain on hold and must not be described as a completed legal or compliance assessment.