Observation separated from inference
The most common defect in investigative reporting is a conclusion presented as a fact. "The claimant is exaggerating his injury" is an opinion the investigator is not qualified to give and opposing counsel will happily explore. "At 10:42 the subject lifted a bag of mulch from the bed of the pickup with both hands and carried it approximately thirty feet" is a fact that speaks for itself.
Every fact has an identified source
- Direct observation, with the time, the investigator's position, and conditions
- Statements, attributed to a named person with contact information
- Public records, identified by the source and date accessed
- Open-source material, captured with the collection date and preserved
The gaps are part of the record
A report that documents only activity invites the question of what happened during the unaccounted hours. Reporting the full observation window — including the stretches where nothing occurred and the periods when the subject was not visible — is both more honest and considerably harder to attack.
What should accompany the report
Time-stamped video and photographs, an activity timeline keyed to the surveillance log, statement audio where applicable, and retained field notes. The unedited master matters most: if authenticity is challenged, the ability to produce the original recording ends the argument.
Written to be produced
Assume every report may be disclosed. That standard eliminates internal commentary, speculation about motive, and characterizations that counsel would have to disclaim. It costs nothing and it is the single easiest way to keep field work from becoming a problem later.