Report Paragraph: Precision Before Signature
An agent submits this draft paragraph for a report of investigation:
"On 12 June, the informant was met by S/A Kowalski and a vehicle was observed at the residence. Neither the informant nor the agents was aware of the surveillance. Having arrived at 1400 hours, the buy money was counted and photographed by Kowalski. The subject, who told the informant he kept 'a few' guns in the basement, which were later found to number 11. Approximately $2,400 was recovered, and the serial number was obliterated on approximately three of the firearms."
The supervisor returns it unapproved.
1. Identify at least four distinct defects in the paragraph and supply a corrected version.
Read the worked answer
Defects:
- Agentless passive - "a vehicle was observed" names no observer. In a report the observer is the evidence.
- Dangling modifier - "Having arrived at 1400 hours, the buy money was counted" says the money arrived.
- Fragment - "The subject, who told the informant he kept 'a few' guns in the basement, which were later found to number 11" has no main clause.
- Vague quantity dressed as precision - "approximately $2,400" and "approximately three of the firearms" are unverifiable as written; either count it or say how it was estimated.
Corrected: "On 12 June at 1400 hours, S/A Kowalski met with the informant. Kowalski counted and photographed $2,412 in prerecorded buy money. Kowalski then observed a vehicle at the residence. Neither the informant nor the agents knew of the surveillance. The subject told the informant he kept 'a few' guns in the basement; a later search recovered 11 firearms. The serial numbers on 3 of the 11 firearms had been obliterated."
2. Why is "approximately $2,400" a problem in this document, and what is the fix?
Read the worked answer
Two problems.
It is an estimate of an exact sum. Buy money is counted and recorded; the exact figure exists. Writing "approximately" discards a verified number and leaves a defense position: if the recovery later totals $2,388 or $2,455, the report appears inaccurate on a fact that was never in doubt.
It conceals the counting method. "Approximately" does not say whether the writer rounded, estimated by eye, or counted and then rounded. Those are different levels of reliability and should not be hidden behind one word.
The fix is to state the exact figure and, if any uncertainty genuinely exists, state its source: "$2,412 in prerecorded buy money, counted by Kowalski at 1400 hours" or "an estimated $2,400 based on banded bundles, not individually counted." Reserve "approximately" for estimates and label the method; never use it where a count was performed.
3. Rewrite the final sentence so a reader cannot misread how many firearms had obliterated serial numbers.
Read the worked answer
The original - "the serial number was obliterated on approximately three of the firearms" - is ambiguous in three ways: whether "three" is a floor, a ceiling, or a guess; whether "approximately" attaches to the number or to the obliteration; and whether "the serial number" means a specific number or each firearm's number.
Rewrite: "Of the 11 recovered firearms, 3 bore serial numbers that had been obliterated. On the remaining 8, the serial numbers were legible."
Why it holds up:
- The count is exact and the total is stated, so the reader can verify 3 + 8 = 11.
- The denominator is explicit, which is what lets a reader judge significance.
- The second sentence forecloses the assumption that the status of the other 8 is unknown - if it was unknown, the report must say so, not omit it.
- Past perfect ("had been obliterated") places the act before recovery, which matters if obliteration is itself an element to be charged.