Tools assist; they do not decide
A useful tool performs repeatable work: counting a deadline, organising chronology, prompting evidence questions or identifying a likely complaint route. It should not convert a disputed legal question into a false certainty. The output depends on the rules programmed into the tool and the facts supplied by the user.
Current processing model
Current public tools are designed to work in the browser and do not require a ConsumerWise account. Information typed into a chronology, checklist or calculator is not intentionally uploaded to ConsumerWise as a case file. Export features create downloadable text or files in the browser.
Some deadline tools request the public GOV.UK bank-holidays JSON feed so the calculator can account for relevant bank holidays. That fetch obtains public calendar data; it does not send the case facts typed into the tool to GOV.UK.
Deadline calculators
A deadline calculator can implement ordinary counting rules but cannot decide every contested start date, valid extension, clarification issue, service question or jurisdictional exception. Where the date matters, the tool should explain its assumptions and link the underlying official guidance.
Builders, audits and checklists
Chronology builders organise events; evidence checklists identify categories to preserve; response audits compare issues raised with issues answered. They are structured thinking aids. They do not authenticate documents, prove that an event happened or determine that an organisation acted unlawfully.
Exports and saved copies
When a tool offers a copy or download function, the resulting material is created for the user to save. ConsumerWise does not treat a browser download as a cloud backup. Users remain responsible for storing sensitive complaint material securely on their own device or chosen service.
Versioning and regression
Tool logic can become outdated even if the interface still runs. Legal-rule changes, bank-holiday handling, complaint waiting periods and route eligibility therefore require both content review and code testing. Material logic changes should be reflected in the reviewed date and relevant methodology notes.
Privacy boundary
If a future tool needs to submit personal information, upload documents, call an AI service or save a case on the server, it should not inherit this “local processing” description by accident. That would require a fresh privacy and security assessment and clear notice at the point of use.