Preserve inconsistencies before attempting to resolve them

Define the difference precisely

Accounts can differ on a date, sequence, words used, an action or who was present. Record the precise point of difference before assessing its significance. Two witnesses may agree on the main event while describing a secondary detail differently. Another difference may affect a central question. The enquiry should identify which issue is material, what each source says about it and what further information could help explain the difference.

Identify the source of knowledge

Establish what each witness personally saw or heard, what they learned from another person and what they reconstructed later. Their role, location and opportunity to observe may help explain the account. A statement should preserve those distinctions. Where a record assists recollection, identify the document and how it was used. The contents of that record should not quietly become a claim of independent memory.

Keep the chronology faithful to the sources

Use exact dates where supported and retain approximate dates where that is the witness’s actual recollection. Record conflicting dates rather than selecting one simply to create a tidy sequence. Distinguish a contemporaneous entry from a later summary of earlier events. If the available record uses a different time or sequence, identify that difference and its source. The chronology can show an unresolved question while the enquiry continues.

Seek relevant corroboration and clarification

Consider the records or witnesses capable of addressing the disputed point. A calendar entry can record a scheduled meeting without establishing attendance or the words spoken. A message can corroborate that a concern was communicated without proving every underlying allegation. Clarification should explore the relevant issue without suggesting a preferred answer. Record the witness’s response accurately and give the prepared statement an appropriate review and correction process.

Explain what remains unresolved

The final assessment should identify the competing accounts, relevant corroboration and reasons for any factual finding. If the material does not resolve the issue, state that position and explain its effect on the commissioned questions. Further enquiries may be useful, but their likely purpose should be clear. An inconsistency is not automatically evidence of dishonesty. The value of the report is in showing the evidence and reasoning that support the assessment, including the points where a firm conclusion is unavailable.

About this guidance.

Practical commissioning guidance. The appropriate process depends on the matter, instructions and applicable requirements.

Further reading.