The Reservoir Bund Incident Report
At 06:10 on 14 March, a section of cadets was crossing the upper bund of a reservoir during a map-reading exercise when a cadet slipped into shallow water. The following written statements were collected.
Cpl Perera's log: '05:40 - radio check with base completed. Section moved off at 05:45. At 06:05 I ordered the section to withdraw after the signal from the far bank.'
Cadet Silva: 'We left at about 05:50. I heard the radio check just before we moved. The corporal told us to turn back only after the boat sounded its horn twice.'
L/Cpl Fernando: 'The radio was working at 05:40. The horn sounded at 06:05. We were already off the bund when the order came.'
The exercise instruction states: 'No section may cross the bund before first light (05:55) or after the horn signal.' No one was injured; the cadet's boot was waterlogged and the section returned to base at 06:35. The instructor must decide whether the section breached the instruction and what to record.
1. Identify the central factual conflict in the three statements and explain why it matters for the instructor's decision.
Read the worked answer
The central conflict is the time the section left the assembly point and, separately, when it was actually on the bund. Cpl Perera records moving off at 05:45; Cadet Silva says about 05:50. Both times are before first light at 05:55, so the two statements agree on the key point even though they differ by five minutes. That matters because the instruction prohibits crossing before 05:55. If the section left at 05:45 or 05:50 and walked directly to the bund, it probably began crossing before first light.
The second conflict is the withdrawal order. Perera says he ordered withdrawal at 06:05 'after the signal'; Fernando says the horn sounded at 06:05 and the section was 'already off the bund' when the order came. That does not necessarily contradict Perera: the section could have come off the bund and then received the order. The instructor should separate departure time, crossing time, and withdrawal time rather than treating the statements as one dispute. The safest finding is that a timing breach is likely and requires a clarification interview, not that the section deliberately ignored the rule.
2. What can and cannot be concluded from the statements about whether the horn signal was obeyed?
Read the worked answer
Can be concluded: all three statements place the horn at or near 06:05. Perera says he acted after the signal; Silva says the order came after two horn blasts. Nobody claims the horn sounded before the section crossed. On the face of the statements, the withdrawal appears to have followed the signal, not preceded it.
Cannot be concluded: whether the section was still on the bund when the horn sounded. Fernando says they were already off the bund; Perera's log is silent on that point; Silva does not say. 'Off the bund' could mean safely back on the near bank, or merely at the foot of the bund on the far side. The instruction prohibits crossing after the horn, so the exact position at 06:05 is decisive. The statements also do not establish whether the horn was audible to everyone, or whether 'two blasts' was the agreed signal. The instructor should not record a signal breach without resolving those points, but should record the probable first-light breach, which is supported by two independent times.
3. Rewrite Cpl Perera's final sentence so that it is precise enough for an official record.
Read the worked answer
A precise version would be: 'At 06:05, after hearing two horn blasts from the far bank, I ordered the section to withdraw from the bund. The section then moved to the near bank and returned to base, arriving at 06:35.'
The original sentence fails because 'after the signal' does not say what the signal was, who gave it, or whether it was heard clearly. 'Ordered the section to withdraw' does not say where the section was at that moment. The rewrite fixes three things: it specifies the signal (two horn blasts), it records the source (far bank), and it separates the order from the movement that followed. It also adds the return time, which allows a reader to check the account against the base log. A good incident entry should answer who, what, when, where, and on what evidence; it should not use vague phrases such as 'after the signal' when the signal itself is the disputed fact.