The Incident Note Standard
Your port issues this extract from its report-writing standard:
Incident notes must (a) be strictly factual and chronological; (b) state times in 24-hour format and identify the officer by badge number only; (c) avoid characterising a person's motive or truthfulness; (d) put the officer's own observations before any second-hand information; (e) use plain language and avoid internal jargon; and (f) end with the action taken, not with a recommendation unless a recommendation was formally made.
A colleague submits this draft:
"At about 2:20 pm I dealt with a suspicious traveller who was obviously lying about his goods. Another officer told me he had seen the same guy last month. The subject was clearly trying to avoid paying duty. I think we should ban him from the port and I recommend charges. Badge 4471."
1. Identify each element of the draft that breaches the standard, naming the lettered clause breached and the specific words responsible.
Read the worked answer
| Words in draft | Clause breached | Why |
|---|---|---|
| "At about 2:20 pm" | (a) and (b) | "About" is not factual precision; "2:20 pm" is not 24-hour format. Should be 14:20 or the nearest recorded time. |
| "a suspicious traveller" | (c) | "Suspicious" is a conclusion dressed as an observation. Record what the traveller did. |
| "obviously lying" | (c) | Directly characterises truthfulness. This is the most serious breach because it is unverifiable. |
| "Another officer told me he had seen the same guy last month" | (d) and (b) | Second-hand information placed before the officer's own observations, and the other officer is not identified by badge number. |
| "clearly trying to avoid paying duty" | (c) | An assertion of motive. The facts (what was declared, what was found) belong here; the inference does not. |
| "The subject" | (e) | Internal jargon. "The traveller" is plain language. |
| "I think we should ban him... I recommend charges" | (f) | The note ends with two recommendations, one of them outside the writer's authority, and records no action taken. |
| (absent) | (f) | There is no action taken anywhere in the draft - the one element (f) requires at the end. |
Cross-cutting point: the draft is also not chronological. It moves from the interaction to a past event reported by someone else, then to a conclusion. The order should be: what the officer saw and did, in time order; then any second-hand information, attributed.
2. Rewrite the draft so it complies, in 60 words or fewer. Then explain the practical reason clause (c) exists.
Read the worked answer
Rewrite (48 words)
"At 14:20, at the primary booth, I reviewed the traveller's goods declaration with him. Badge 4471. He stated he had nothing further to declare. I referred him to secondary for a goods examination. No enforcement action was taken at primary."
(The factual content stands in for the real facts; what is being demonstrated is form, not substance.)
What changed
- 24-hour time, no "about"
- Badge number only
- "Suspicious," "obviously lying," "clearly trying to," and "subject" all removed
- No second-hand material in the opening; if included at all, it would follow the officer's own observations and be attributed by badge
- Ends with the action taken
- No recommendations
Why clause (c) exists
Because a characterisation is not evidence and cannot be tested. "Obviously lying" tells a reviewer nothing they can check; "he stated X, then stated Y" lets them check both statements and reach their own conclusion. Writing the conclusion instead of the facts creates three concrete problems:
- It is unverifiable, so it cannot be defended if challenged.
- It contaminates later review - a tribunal or reviewer reading "clearly trying to avoid paying duty" is being invited to adopt an inference rather than assess facts.
- It damages the writer's credibility, because it reads as bias, and it makes every other observation in the note look equally like opinion.
The discipline is simple to state: record what happened; let the reader do the inferring.
3. Using only clauses (a), (d) and (f), explain how the note would change if a second officer's earlier observation were the most important fact in the file.
Read the worked answer
The three clauses pull in different directions, and the resolution is structural, not verbal.
- (d) says the officer's own observations come first. That ordering rule does not disappear because the second-hand fact is important. Importance is shown by placement within the second-hand section and by explicit attribution - not by moving it to the top.
- (a) requires chronology and factuality. So the second-hand material must be dated, attributed by badge, and marked as reported: "At 15:05, Badge 2180 stated that on 12 May he had observed..." Not "another officer told me he had seen the same guy."
- (f) requires the note to end with the action taken. So the structure becomes: own observations in time order → attributed second-hand information → action taken.
Worked shape
- 14:20 - own observation at primary; what was said and done.
- 14:40 - referral to secondary; what was examined.
- 15:05 - Badge 2180 reports an observation from 12 May; recorded as reported, not adopted as your own.
- 15:20 - action taken (goods examined, entry corrected, traveller released / held).
The trap to avoid: promoting the second-hand fact to the opening "because it is the most important." Clause (d) is about provenance, not significance - a report is still a report, and putting someone else's observation first without attribution is precisely the failure the rule targets. If the observation genuinely drives the outcome, say so in the action taken, in factual terms, and let the attributed report above it carry the weight.