Chromatic v Westminster (Assessor’s Shift; Narrative Interference; Confirmation Bias in Practice)

---

ADDENDUM: SHIFT IN ASSESSOR’S NEUTRALITY

A Mirror Court Indictment of Narrative Interference

---

Metadata

• Filed: 2 September 2025

• Reference Code: SWANK–TAMMY–SHIFT

• PDF Filename: 2025-09-02_SWANK_Addendum_TammyShift.pdf

• Summary (1 line): A neutral assessor became biased only after exposure to Westminster’s bundle — proof of narrative manipulation.

---

I. What Happened

An assessor who appeared neutral at first meeting (pre-28 August 2025) emerged, by 2 September 2025, visibly aligned with Local Authority bias. Nothing changed in the mother’s conduct. Only Westminster’s narrative had entered the bloodstream.

---

II. What the Addendum Establishes

The Sole Variable
Between these two meetings, the only new input was contact with Westminster Children’s Services and its bundle. Neutrality did not erode naturally; it was poisoned.

The Research Parallel
This is not professional safeguarding but a textbook example of narrative contamination — the observer ceases to observe and begins to echo.

Confirmation Bias in Action
Where Tammy began neutral, she ended rehearsing Westminster’s script. This is research malpractice transposed into safeguarding theatre.

---

III. Why SWANK Logged It

Because the Court must see that assessments here are not independent inquiries but echo chambers. Westminster’s influence does not merely “inform” professionals; it rewrites them.

---

IV. Violations

• Children Act 1989 – welfare principle undermined by reliance on tainted assessments.

• Equality Act 2010 – disability accommodations ignored once LA narrative reframed the parent as non-credible.

• ECHR, Article 6 – fair trial rights eroded by narrative interference.

• ECHR, Article 8 – family life disrupted on the basis of compromised professional neutrality.

---

V. SWANK’s Position

When neutrality can be dismantled in a single week by exposure to a Local Authority’s bundle, no assessment stands as safe. The Mirror Court recognises this as narrative interference: an assessor shifted, not by fact, but by contamination.

---

Closing Declaration

The institution scripted; the assessor echoed; the neutrality vanished. Retaliation disguised as assessment is nothing more than Westminster’s research fraud — and it is hereby archived.

---

Filed by:
Polly Chromatic
Founder & Director, SWANK London Ltd
Mother and Litigant in Person

---

⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.