Praxis Systems Do I need a DPIA? Request a Demonstration

Methodology

A structured method you can inspect — not a model you have to believe.

The foundation of a Praxis assessment is a documented, versioned methodology: stated criteria, stated assumptions, stated limits. One Malaysian baseline, the DEICA method for DPIAs, and a criterion-by-criterion comparison for transfers — every finding tied to source, version and the assessments that relied on it.

Request the Methodology Overview

Two methods, one engine

DEICA for DPIAs; a criterion baseline for transfers.

Impact assessments follow the five-stage DEICA method. Cross-border transfers are compared, criterion by criterion, against the Malaysian baseline. Both draw on the same maintained evidence base.

D Describe E Evaluate I Identify C Consider A Assess

PDPA Act 709 (2024 amendments)PDPC DPIA Guideline · DEICAADMP Guidelines.129 cross-border

Frameworks are named as references for the workflow — not as published legal conclusions.

Structured Freedom

Standardise the evidence. Preserve the judgment.

Consistency and professional nuance are not in conflict — provided you are explicit about which is which. Praxis standardises one column and deliberately leaves the other alone.

Standardised by Praxis

Source provenance · evidence mappings · assessment criteria · required questions · validation rules · review checkpoints · audit history.

Reserved to the professional

Contextual interpretation · weighting of unusual facts · reasoned departures · client-specific advice · the final conclusion and recommendation.

Two competent professionals may reach different defensible conclusions from the same evidence. Praxis does not force false uniformity — it makes the route to each conclusion transparent, evidenced and reviewable.

What the Framework Structures

The considerations a defensible comparison rests on.

  • Data-subject rights
  • Personal-data protection principles
  • Processing and transfer requirements
  • Accountability
  • Breach notification
  • Processor responsibility
  • Regulatory enforcement
  • Redress
  • Onward-transfer controls
  • Other factors material to the route

Theory of Knowledge

How information becomes a decision — and stays explainable.

Seven propositions govern how Praxis treats evidence. They are the reason a finding can be defended a year after it was made.

01
A source is not a conclusion.
02
A citation supports a claim only when its meaning and context are preserved.
03
A methodology should state its criteria, assumptions, version and limits.
04
Scoring supports comparison; it does not erase ambiguity.
05
Technology may assist throughout the chain; professional responsibility remains human.
06
Every material conclusion should be explainable after the fact.
07
Confidence must be proportionate to the quality, completeness and currency of the evidence.

Praxis structures and evidences professional analysis. It does not independently provide legal advice or replace the review and approval of an appropriately qualified person. Detailed scoring logic is maintained as confidential methodology; the criteria, sources and reasoning behind any finding are open to the professional reviewing it.

Traceable Findings

Findings are tied to sources, versions and the work that relied on them.

Each finding is associated with its legal sources, the source version, review status and the assessments that relied upon it — so a conclusion can always be traced, and a change can always be connected back to the work it may affect.

Source & version
The provision relied upon and the exact version reviewed.
Review status
Whether the source has been reviewed, and when.
Dependent assessments
The assessments that relied on the finding, for change-impact analysis.

Request the methodology overview.

We can share how the baseline, the DEICA method, the comparison criteria and the traceability model are structured — and how they hold up under review.

Request the Methodology Overview Explore Praxis DPIA