Filtering Safeguarding Reports - sanity check please

[sigma]

Our filtering provider has been sending "new" Safeguarding reports.

 

"They have decided" that we don't need to see all the Safeguarding category log records any more.

 

We identified a Pornography category block was unreported earlier this week which we queried.

 

We have been informed that their new reporting system looks at an entire word in the url and using "contextual filters", decides or not whether to include the log record in a Safeguarding report. In this case, it decided there was nothing to report! (As it happens, all of our Porn blocks have been FP's, as it this one, but that's not the point here).

 

We expect a full and complete report of any Safeguarding category blocks that actually took place, in line with current guidance.

 

Thoughts please?

[Jawloms]

Definitely doesn't sound right to me. If the filter is blocking it as being porn, surely the reporting should report it whether it actually is or not as you need to know it occurred? Presumably they're assuming the safeguarding report got it right and the block was wrong, but for me if I was going program something to "assume" I'd err on the more cautious side and report it so it can be checked by a human?