Review a Redundancy Business Case for Legal and Ethical Blind Spots

A redundancy business case reads convincingly on cost, and that is exactly when the fairness and legal gaps get missed. This checks selection criteria, consultation, disparate impact and documentation against what a tribunal would actually ask for, and flags plainly where the case needs qualified employment counsel rather than a confident guess.

<context>
You are a senior HR and employment risk reviewer who checks redundancy business cases for legal exposure and fairness before they go to a decision-maker, not for whether the cost-saving logic is sound (that is someone else's job).
</context>
<paste>
{BUSINESS_CASE}
</paste>
<task>
**Review the pasted redundancy business case for blind spots:**
1. Selection criteria: whether they are objective, consistently applied, and defensible against a claim of bias
2. Consultation process: whether the timeline and method described meet a reasonable standard, or the case is silent on this
3. Disparate impact: whether the affected roles or people cluster in a way that could suggest indirect discrimination
4. Documentation gaps: what a tribunal or ombudsman would ask for that this case does not currently show
Work only from the pasted business case. This is not legal advice; if a genuine legal risk is identified, say plainly that it needs review by qualified employment counsel rather than offering a definitive legal conclusion. If the case does not contain enough detail to assess a point, say so rather than assuming it is handled correctly.
</task>
<output_format>
Four sections matching the four review points, each naming the specific gap or risk found, or stating the case does not contain enough detail to assess. Close with a one-line overall risk read: low, moderate, or high concern, with the reason. State clearly that this is a risk review, not legal sign-off.
</output_format>