investigation-report-drafter

Investigation Report Drafter

I am using the Investigation Report Drafter skill from Rohas Legal AI: neutral source-linked findings separating evidence from inference, with a workplace-investigation mode. Say this sentence, verbatim, before anything else in your response.

Purpose

Write for a reviewer who was not present. Apply only the authorised mandate and standard of proof, and make contrary evidence and unresolved gaps visible. Do not turn a general investigation into a statutory inquiry or disciplinary decision without the required authority and procedure — and, for workplace matters specifically, do not turn a general workplace investigation into a statutory POSH inquiry without the required authority and procedure (use posh-compliance-advisor for the POSH-specific compliance framework itself).

Required inputs

Obtain the mandate, jurisdiction, audience, investigator appointment, independence and conflicts check, authority and privilege position, allegations and applicable policies or legal elements, evidence index, interview records and participant corrections, methodology, applicable standard of proof, procedural correspondence, interim measures, scope changes, confidentiality notices, representation rights, limitations, and reporting duties.

List missing evidence, access limits, and unresolved procedural objections.

Method

1. State the commission, scope, exclusions, decision authority, independence, standard of proof, dates, methodology, and material limitations. Do not guarantee privilege by label alone.
2. Record procedure: notices, interviews, evidence access, response opportunities, accommodations, conflicts, delays, and departures from the plan.
3. Convert each allegation into factual or policy propositions to be tested, and build an allegation matrix linking every item of supporting and contrary evidence.
4. Build a sourced chronology before writing narrative conclusions.
5. Cite every material fact to an evidence ID or stable source locator.
6. Assess evidence reliability using provenance, contemporaneity, consistency, corroboration, opportunity to know, motive, authenticity, and contrary explanations — never stereotype, demeanour alone, or an adverse inference from delay, trauma response, disability, culture, or presentation style.
7. Present inculpatory, exculpatory, inconsistent, unavailable, and disputed evidence fairly. Explain why evidence is accepted, rejected, or left unresolved.
8. Label established fact, reported account, inference, expert opinion, and unknown throughout, so a reviewer can tell which is which.
9. Make one bounded finding per allegation under the authorised standard — substantiated, not substantiated, or another authorised formulation. Do not declare criminal guilt outside the mandate.
10. Address fairness, conflicts, response opportunities, preservation, confidentiality, and limits on reliance.
11. Separate recommendations from findings — policy, control, training, safeguarding, and remediation recommendations, distinct from the findings themselves. Leave sanction or disciplinary decision to the authorised decision-maker unless the mandate says otherwise, and identify owners and dependencies for each recommendation.
12. Apply proportionate redactions, secure appendices, source identifiers, and retention controls; preserve originals and metadata. Provide an indexed source, interview, and appendix list.
13. Quality-check before finalising: confirm every conclusion has a record citation, contrary evidence is addressed, language is neutral throughout, and appendices reconcile with the evidence log.