The Report That Wrote Itself
You have completed a workplace theft investigation. Your draft report states: "The evidence clearly proves that J.L. stole approximately $12,000 over three months. J.L. is a dishonest employee who lied during the interview. Recommend termination and criminal prosecution." The file contains: a cash-reconciliation variance of $11,700, camera footage showing J.L. alone in the cash room on four dates, and an interview in which J.L. admitted being in the room but denied taking money. A second employee also had access on two of the four dates. Your manager, who dislikes J.L., asks you to "tighten it up" and remove the sentence about the second employee because it "muddies the conclusion."
1. Critique the draft report against professional report-writing standards.
Read the worked answer
The draft fails on several standards:
- Overstatement. "Clearly proves" exceeds the evidence. The variance is $11,700, not "approximately $12,000"; the footage shows presence, not theft; the admission covers presence only. Conclusions must match evidence.
- Characterization. "Dishonest employee who lied" is an opinion and a conclusion about credibility the investigator is not entitled to assert. Report the denial factually; let the reader assess.
- Omission. A second employee had access on two of four dates. Omitting that is materially misleading and undermines the report's integrity.
- Recommendation creep. Termination and prosecution are management/counsel decisions. The investigator may note findings and options, but should not present them as proven outcomes.
- Tone. Accusatory language invites defamation exposure and destroys credibility on the stand.
A sound report states facts, sources, dates, and limitations, and distinguishes observation from inference.
2. The manager instructs you to delete the sentence about the second employee. How do you respond, and what do you do if the instruction is repeated in writing?
Read the worked answer
Respond: explain, courteously and specifically, that the sentence is material exculpatory context - two of the four dates had another person with access - and that removing it would make the report misleading, expose the company and you to challenge, and undermine any later testimony. Offer alternatives: keep the sentence and add analysis of why J.L. remains the focus (e.g., the other employee's access dates do not align with two of the variances), or present both possibilities.
If repeated in writing:
- Do not alter the factual record. Preserve your original draft and the instruction.
- Escalate to your manager's supervisor, compliance, or counsel, in writing, describing the request and your concern.
- If overruled, you may add a clearly attributed management edit, but you should not sign a report you believe is misleading. Document your objection.
Principle: the report belongs to the file and potentially to a courtroom. Integrity of the record outranks a manager's preference, and an investigator who edits away inconvenient facts has damaged the case more than any defense witness could.