Apply where you may.
But it’s clear what this is about.
Investigative work is guided by a simple principle:
Be aggressive in finding evidence, and conservative in describing what the evidence proves.
The purpose of an investigation–when done in earnest–is not to confirm a predetermined conclusion. It is to establish the most accurate account possible from the available evidence, while clearly distinguishing verified facts from allegations, inference, uncertainty, and rumor.
Evidence and Source Standards
I prioritize primary and contemporaneous sources whenever possible. These may include official records, court documents, archived webpages, internal or public organizational documents, direct communications, photographs, video, firsthand witness accounts, and statements from individuals directly involved.
Secondary sources may provide important context or investigative leads, but the credibility of a claim is not determined by how often it has been repeated. Multiple articles, social media posts, or individuals may ultimately trace back to the same original source and therefore should not automatically be treated as independent corroboration.
For significant claims, particularly those that could materially affect the reputation of an individual or organization, corroboration is strongly preferred.
The seriousness of an allegation determines the strength of evidence required before it is presented as established.
Fact, Allegation, and Inference
Investigative findings are evaluated according to what the available evidence actually demonstrates.
I must distinguish between:
- Documented fact: directly supported by reliable records or primary evidence.
- Corroborated information: supported by multiple credible and substantially independent sources.
- Inference: a conclusion reasonably suggested by established facts but not directly proven.
- Allegation: a claim made by an identifiable or anonymous source that has not been independently established.
- Rumor or secondhand information: information reported by someone who did not directly witness or document the underlying event.
- Speculation: a possible explanation for which insufficient supporting evidence currently exists.
These categories should not be blurred. An allegation does not become a fact merely because it is plausible, widely repeated, or consistent with other circumstances.
Source Provenance
Whenever practicable, I attempt to determine the origin of information.
This includes identifying:
- whether a source has firsthand or secondhand knowledge;
- when the information was obtained;
- whether supporting records exist;
- whether multiple sources are genuinely independent;
- whether later reports are merely repeating an earlier account; and
- whether the source is in a position to reliably know the information being provided.
The closer information can be traced to an original document, direct participant, contemporaneous record, or eyewitness, the greater its potential evidentiary value.
Corroboration
Consequential allegations should generally not be treated as established on the basis of a single uncorroborated source.
Corroboration may come from documentary evidence, independent witnesses, contemporaneous communications, public records, physical or digital evidence, or other reliable sources.
Two sources are not necessarily independent merely because they are different people. If both received their information from the same person, document, post, or rumor, they may constitute only one underlying source.
Anonymous Sources
Anonymous sources can play a legitimate role in investigative work, particularly when individuals may face professional, legal, social, or personal consequences for speaking publicly.
However, anonymity reduces the reader’s ability to independently evaluate credibility.
Accordingly, anonymous information is generally treated as a lead or supporting evidence unless it can be independently corroborated.
Serious allegations against identifiable individuals should not ordinarily rest solely upon anonymous claims.
Timeline and Context
Whenever possible, investigations should establish a factual chronology before attempting to determine motive, responsibility, or causation.
Relevant dates, employment relationships, reporting structures, communications, organizational changes, departures, public statements, and other contemporaneous events should be mapped before broader conclusions are reached.
Chronology can reveal important relationships between events, but temporal proximity alone does not prove causation.
Alternative Explanations
Investigative hypotheses should be tested rather than defended.
I must actively consider evidence that could weaken, contradict, or provide an alternative explanation for a working theory.
A conclusion becomes stronger when it survives serious attempts to disprove it.
When multiple reasonable explanations remain possible, that uncertainty should be disclosed rather than resolved through speculation.
Absence of Evidence
The absence of publicly available information is not automatically evidence that an event did or did not occur.
For example, the removal of a person’s name from an organizational webpage may establish that the person is no longer listed. It does not, without additional evidence, establish whether that person resigned, was terminated, changed positions, requested removal, or left for some unrelated reason.
Investigative conclusions should therefore remain limited to what the evidence actually establishes.
Association and Responsibility
Professional relationships, friendships, organizational proximity, shared locations, common reporting structures, or overlapping timelines do not by themselves establish knowledge, participation, responsibility, or wrongdoing.
Evidence concerning one individual should not automatically be attributed to another person merely because they worked together or occupied related positions.
Evidentiary Classification
To maintain consistency, investigative findings may be described using the following general framework:
| Classification | Standard |
|---|---|
| Confirmed | Supported by primary documentation, definitive records, direct evidence, or exceptionally strong independent corroboration. |
| Strongly Supported | Multiple credible and substantially independent sources support the conclusion, although some uncertainty remains. |
| Probable | Available evidence substantially favors one explanation, but reasonable alternatives have not been eliminated. |
| Plausible | Evidence provides a credible basis for further investigation but is insufficient for a firm conclusion. |
| Unresolved | Evidence is incomplete, conflicting, or insufficient to favor one explanation. |
| Weakly Supported | Some evidence exists, but reliability, independence, or corroboration is limited. |
| Unsupported | Credible supporting evidence has not been found or stronger available evidence contradicts the claim. |
These classifications describe the strength of the available evidence, not the importance of the underlying issue.
Publication Standard
The threshold for investigating a claim is lower than the threshold for publishing it as a conclusion.
A credible tip, anomaly, anonymous complaint, unexplained record, or secondhand statement may justify further investigation.
Publishing an allegation concerning an identifiable individual or organization requires greater caution.
Before presenting potentially damaging claims, consideration should be given to:
- the reliability and independence of the sources;
- the availability of documentary evidence;
- the seriousness of the allegation;
- whether reasonable alternative explanations exist;
- whether the subject has had an appropriate opportunity to respond;
- whether the language accurately reflects the degree of certainty; and
- whether publication serves a legitimate public-interest or informational purpose.
Corrections and New Evidence
Investigative conclusions are necessarily based on the evidence available at the time.
If credible new information materially changes a conclusion, the record should be updated.
Corrections should be made clearly rather than obscured, and significant changes in the evidentiary status of a claim should be disclosed when appropriate.
A willingness to revise a conclusion in response to better evidence is a feature of responsible investigation, not a weakness.
Editorial Independence
Evidence should determine the conclusion rather than the preferred narrative.
Information that contradicts an investigative theory should not be suppressed merely because it complicates the story.
Likewise, information favorable to an investigative subject should be evaluated under the same evidentiary standards as information that is critical of them.
The objective is not advocacy for or against a person or organization.
The objective is to determine, as accurately as possible, what can be established, what can reasonably be inferred, and what remains unknown.
Core Standard
Ultimately, responsible investigative work requires both persistence and restraint.
Investigators should be willing to pursue difficult questions, locate obscure records, revisit timelines, challenge official accounts, identify inconsistencies, and follow credible leads wherever they go.
At the same time, conclusions must never extend beyond the evidence supporting them.
Investigate broadly. Verify carefully. Attribute precisely. Publish cautiously. Correct openly.