[James Chan]

I have come across a number of airspace change proposal documents that have sections titled:

Quantitative Safety Assessments,
DME Performance Assessments,
RNP Approach Safety Case
etc.

Its contents are "Commercial in confidence".

Is there a good reason that safety documents should be hidden in this manner?
Or is it mainly to prevent competitors to copy+paste work done and undercut it?

[rikur_]

In my experience as a consultant, by default all documents we produce for a client would be Commercial in Confidence, unless there was reason to make them more sensitive, or less sensitive. It's our default position.

With public sector clients in particular it is important to distinguish between our work for a public sector client where we still own the IPR and exploitation rights, vs what some perceive to be the default position that the work becomes Crown Copyright. It also ensures the work isn't automatically released in response to a FOIA request, without first being reviewed.

A lot of the time there is probably no need for the classification - but often my work incorporates datasets and analysis from others that have restrictions upon how I can reuse them so it's easiest to have a default position that limits sharing unless required, and then review if asked.

[kanga]

In my experience as a consultant, by default all documents we produce for a client would be Commercial in Confidence,..
With public sector clients in particular ... It also ensures the work isn't automatically released in response to a FOIA request, without first being reviewed.

A lot of the time there is probably no need for the classification - ...

AIUI, in 'public authority' records which are by default liable for Release in response to FOIA or EIR requests or at latest by the Public Records Acts time limits if still extant, any 'In Confidence' marking (or more than one) must be preceded by an explanatory marking such as 'Commercial'. Others are, eg, 'Medical' 'Staff' 'Honours' [ ], ... The FOIA effect is that if Release is refused (or document Redacted) citing those grounds, but thsose grounds are deemed on Review to be invalid for the non-Release or Redaction, then it is impermissible later to cite other 'In Confidence' grounds.

I believe these are called 'Privacy markings' rather than 'Classifications', which are different ..

[rikur_]

I believe these are called 'Privacy markings' rather than 'Classifications', which are different ..

See https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... 2014-U.pdf

In my mind you've got the state driven classification system which relates to how the state protects the information that it holds, but you've also got the customer/supplier relationship between the state and it's suppliers.

As a supplier to the state I provide a document 'Commercial in Confidence' - once the state starts to use it it typically becomes 'Official - sensitive (commercial)'

We've had some individuals suggest that we should just classify it as 'Official - sensitive (commercial)' in the first place - but I believe this is wrong for a deliverables based contract, as whilst we are working on it internally (as a third party) it isn't an Official document, and associated security restrictions, loss reporting, etc don't apply, nor FOIA.