roach that could enable information sharing on the basis of public task, rather than though individual consent, a key underpinning element of the TFD: “We had free reign to get on with it. We of course involved the experts that we needed to: we worked really closely with information governance colleagues, information security and members of the team also worked in performance and reporting.” Insight Bristol team) Over time, consultation with other senior leaders did take place, but formal governance for the TFD was not established across the council and did not exist for many years: "It is part of the unorthodox way in which it emerged. There wasn't any formal governance for probably six or seven years. The Insight team governed and maintained it.” (Insight Bristol team) However, for all the advantages in terms of developing momentum, the absence of an independent governance forum involving senior stakeholders and staff using the TFD seems to have led to a number of other less positive consequences. When problems have arisen with aspects of the TFD, there hasn’t always been a natural place for them to be addressed, which has meant problems have sometimes persisted longer than they should. For example, internal acknowledgement of inaccuracy of the CCE and CSE targeted risk models was lacking, as noted in Section 5.4. There is also some duplication of functionality across different technological tools used by Bristol children’s services, which was highlighted by practitioners we spoke to, as mentioned in Section 5.2. Without a clear decision by the service on what digital products should be used, by whom and in what instances, in many cases personal preference surfaced as the key determining factor, taking some staff away from using the TFD. I don’t use TFD as much as I c