Choosing Precise Terms in an Incident Narrative
You are a field office supervisor reviewing an incident narrative drafted by a junior agent before it is entered into a protective detail's after-action file. The draft reads: 'The subject's conduct was continuous throughout the event and comprised of repeated attempts to approach the secure perimeter; the detail mitigated the risk by rerouting the protectee.' The narrative will be read by attorneys and by agents who were not present, and it may be produced in litigation. The junior agent asks whether the wording is precise enough to withstand scrutiny, and whether any term overstates or understates what happened. One of the three arguable terms is defensible as written; two are not.
1. The draft uses three arguable terms: 'continuous,' 'comprised of,' and 'mitigated.' Decide which is defensible and which two should be replaced, and supply a replacement for each flawed term. Justify each decision from the meaning of the word, not from how common it is.
Read the worked answer
'Continuous' is the clearest error. Continuous means unbroken in time or space, with no interruption. The draft itself says the attempts were repeated, which asserts gaps. The precise choices are continual (recurring at intervals) or, better, plain wording such as repeated or recurring. 'Continuous' overstates the record and hands a cross-examiner an easy inconsistency.
'Comprised of' should be replaced. Comprise means 'to consist of' or 'to include'; the whole comprises the parts, so 'is comprised of' inverts the construction and is widely treated as an error. Replace with consisted of or was composed of. Note that 'composed of' is the safe idiom; do not simply swap in 'comprised by.'
'Mitigated' is defensible, but only if true. Mitigate means to lessen or reduce, not to eliminate. Rerouting the protectee reduced exposure; it did not remove the risk. If the record shows the risk was actually removed, eliminated or avoided is more accurate; if the risk was merely reduced, 'mitigated' stands.
2. Rewrite the draft in neutral, factual prose of 30 words or fewer. Preserve every fact but remove any characterization of the subject's intent or the duration of the conduct.
Read the worked answer
One acceptable version (26 words):
'During the event the subject repeatedly approached the secure perimeter. The detail rerouted the protectee, reducing exposure to the subject.'
Why this works:
- Two sentences keep causation honest. The original's semicolon implies the rerouting responded to the approaches; stating both facts in sequence lets the reader draw that inference without the writer asserting an intent the narrative does not establish.
- 'Repeatedly' replaces 'continuous' and matches the observable evidence.
- 'Reducing exposure' replaces 'mitigated the risk,' which names an abstract legal conclusion rather than the action taken.
- No mental-state words. Nothing here says the subject 'tried,' 'intended,' or 'attempted.' If the file supports intent, a separate sentence should say what evidence supports it.
3. The junior agent argues that because 'mitigated' and 'comprised of' are both in wide use, neither should be changed. Give a short supervisory ruling that distinguishes the two problems.
Read the worked answer
Frequency of use and precision are different questions, and only one of these is a usage dispute.
- 'Comprised of' is a usage question. Careful writers avoid it, but readers will understand it. Correcting it is good practice, not a factual fix.
- 'Continuous' is a factual question. It asserts something the narrative's own words contradict. That is not style; it is an inaccurate statement in a document that may be read aloud in a hearing.
Ruling: fix all three, but rank them. 'Continuous' must change because it misstates the record. 'Comprised of' should change because a precise alternative costs nothing. 'Mitigated' changes only if the file shows the risk was eliminated rather than reduced.