ASIS PCI common mistakes
ASIS PCI · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Treating the case file as a running diary, so statements, receipts, and photos are logged in the order they arrive rather than tied to a defined case plan with objectives and milestones.
Candidates equate 'documenting everything' with good case management and never build a plan, so the file grows without structure and key tasks (witness re-interviews, evidence submissions, review dates) fall through.
What to do instead
Before active work begins, draft a case plan stating scope, allegations, objectives, key persons, evidence sources, and a timeline with review checkpoints; log every subsequent action against a plan item so gaps are visible.
Mixing investigative and administrative case types in the same tracking method, applying full criminal-style documentation to a simple policy inquiry or vice versa.
Candidates memorise a single 'correct' process and apply it uniformly instead of classifying the case and matching effort to severity, jurisdiction, and whether the matter may become criminal or disciplinary.
What to do instead
At intake, classify the matter (e.g., administrative, civil, criminal, or mixed) and record the rationale; let classification drive the depth of documentation, notification requirements, and referral decisions.
Failing to set and document case status transitions (open, pending, suspended, closed) with reasons and approval, leaving stale cases open indefinitely.
Candidates focus on investigative action and treat status as clerical, so closures are informal and no one can later explain why a case ended or who authorised it.
What to do instead
Maintain a status log with date, changed-by, reason, and approving authority for every transition, and reconcile the open-case list at each review checkpoint.
Collecting items without a documented chain of custody from the moment of seizure, including who handled the item, when, and for what purpose.
Candidates assume custody records matter only for criminal prosecutions and skip them in workplace cases, then cannot account for gaps when the matter escalates or goes to a hearing.
What to do instead
Use a custody form completed at the point of collection and updated at every transfer, with date, time, handler, purpose, and storage location; treat any gap as a defect to be explained in the report.
Photographing or collecting evidence without scale, orientation reference, or a scene sketch, so items cannot later be placed in context.
Candidates prioritise getting a picture of the item itself and overlook that its position and relationship to surroundings are often the contested facts.
What to do instead
For each scene, capture overview, mid-range, and close-up images; include a scale and identifier in close-ups and produce a simple sketch with measurements before items are moved.
Accepting digital evidence as screenshots or forwarded copies rather than preserving the original device or a forensically sound image with hash verification.
Candidates treat digital material like paper documents and are unfamiliar with the authentication issues raised by copies, so they collect convenient artefacts that are later challenged.
What to do instead
Seize or image original media where practicable, record hash values at acquisition and verification, document the tool and examiner, and keep working copies separate from the preserved original.
Writing conclusions that outrun the evidence, asserting intent, motive, or guilt instead of stating what the evidence shows and what remains unresolved.
Candidates believe a decisive-sounding report demonstrates competence, and pressure to resolve the matter pushes them past the limits of their findings.
What to do instead
Separate findings of fact from inferences and recommendations, qualify each conclusion with its supporting evidence, and explicitly list alternative explanations not excluded by the evidence.
Presenting a chronology that omits adverse or inconsistent evidence, producing a one-sided narrative that collapses under cross-examination.
Candidates construct the report as advocacy for their working hypothesis and fear that including contradictions weakens the case.
What to do instead
Build the timeline from all sources, flag conflicts and unresolved gaps in a dedicated section, and explain how each was weighed; credibility is strengthened, not weakened, by addressing contrary evidence.
Conducting interviews without a written plan covering purpose, topic sequence, evidence to be held back, and anticipated responses, then asking leading or multiple questions.
Candidates rely on conversational instinct and want to appear natural, so they improvise and lose control of the account's reliability and completeness.
What to do instead
Prepare an interview plan with objectives, free-recall opening, planned topic progression, and reserved facts; use open questions first, single questions at a time, and record the plan and any deviations in the file.
Failing to secure and assess the scene and initial accounts before interviewing, allowing subjects to compare stories or remove or alter items.
Candidates rush to the interview as the most visible investigative act, not recognising that early uncontrolled contact contaminates accounts and evidence.
What to do instead
On arrival, secure and document the scene, identify and separate witnesses before discussion, obtain brief initial accounts independently, and record the sequence of who was spoken to and when.