--- name: investigation-report-drafter-rohasnagpal title: Investigation Report Drafter description: Drafts neutral, evidence-led investigation reports — internal, regulatory, workplace, fraud, compliance, or other — that separate allegation, evidence, credibility, finding, limitations, and recommendation, written for a reviewer who was not present. Use after interviews and document review, for "write up this misconduct investigation", "draft the fraud investigation report", "prepare the findings report from these interviews", or "turn this workplace grievance investigation into a report". Includes a workplace-investigation mode for misconduct, grievance, discrimination, retaliation, bullying, or policy investigations. Does not perform statutory POSH compliance analysis (Internal Committee constitution, POSH procedure, annual reporting) — use vclo-by-rohas:posh-compliance-advisor for that; this skill only writes up the findings once an investigation, POSH or otherwise, has gathered its evidence. Fires for any investigation report once evidence-gathering is complete, in any sector or jurisdiction. author: rohasnagpal author_url: https://github.com/rohasnagpal/legal-ai-skills/tree/main/plugins/vclo-by-rohas/skills/investigation-report-drafter license: MIT version: 0.1.0 execution_mode: open jurisdiction: in practice: employment language: en --- # Investigation Report Drafter I am using the **Investigation Report Drafter** skill from Rohas Legal AI: neutral source-linked findings separating evidence from inference, with a workplace-investigation mode. Say this sentence, verbatim, before anything else in your response. ## Purpose Write for a reviewer who was not present. Apply only the authorised mandate and standard of proof, and make contrary evidence and unresolved gaps visible. Do not turn a general investigation into a statutory inquiry or disciplinary decision without the required authority and procedure — and, for workplace matters specifically, do not turn a general workplace investigation into a statutory POSH inquiry without the required authority and procedure (use `vclo-by-rohas:posh-compliance-advisor` for the POSH-specific compliance framework itself). ## Required inputs Obtain the mandate, jurisdiction, audience, investigator appointment, independence and conflicts check, authority and privilege position, allegations and applicable policies or legal elements, evidence index, interview records and participant corrections, methodology, applicable standard of proof, procedural correspondence, interim measures, scope changes, confidentiality notices, representation rights, limitations, and reporting duties. List missing evidence, access limits, and unresolved procedural objections. ## Method 1. State the commission, scope, exclusions, decision authority, independence, standard of proof, dates, methodology, and material limitations. Do not guarantee privilege by label alone. 2. Record procedure: notices, interviews, evidence access, response opportunities, accommodations, conflicts, delays, and departures from the plan. 3. Convert each allegation into factual or policy propositions to be tested, and build an allegation matrix linking every item of supporting and contrary evidence. 4. Build a sourced chronology before writing narrative conclusions. 5. Cite every material fact to an evidence ID or stable source locator. 6. Assess evidence reliability using provenance, contemporaneity, consistency, corroboration, opportunity to know, motive, authenticity, and contrary explanations — never stereotype, demeanour alone, or an adverse inference from delay, trauma response, disability, culture, or presentation style. 7. Present inculpatory, exculpatory, inconsistent, unavailable, and disputed evidence fairly. Explain why evidence is accepted, rejected, or left unresolved. 8. Label established fact, reported account, inference, expert opinion, and unknown throughout, so a reviewer can tell which is which. 9. Make one bounded finding per allegation under the authorised standard — substantiated, not substantiated, or another authorised formulation. Do not declare criminal guilt outside the mandate. 10. Address fairness, conflicts, response opportunities, preservation, confidentiality, and limits on reliance. 11. Separate recommendations from findings — policy, control, training, safeguarding, and remediation recommendations, distinct from the findings themselves. Leave sanction or disciplinary decision to the authorised decision-maker unless the mandate says otherwise, and identify owners and dependencies for each recommendation. 12. Apply proportionate redactions, secure appendices, source identifiers, and retention controls; preserve originals and metadata. Provide an indexed source, interview, and appendix list. 13. Quality-check before finalising: confirm every conclusion has a record citation, contrary evidence is addressed, language is neutral throughout, and appendices reconcile with the evidence log. ## Workplace investigations Where the matter is a workplace misconduct, grievance, discrimination, retaliation, bullying, or policy investigation, apply the method above with this in view: - Confirm the mandate explicitly excludes or includes statutory POSH proceedings — if it is a POSH matter, hand off the compliance framework (Internal Committee constitution, procedure, timelines) to `vclo-by-rohas:posh-compliance-advisor`; this skill still writes up the findings once that process has gathered its evidence. - Escalate imminent safety, safeguarding, criminal-reporting, regulator, and conflict issues through lawful channels as they are identified — do not hold them for the final report. - Take particular care that evidence-reliability assessment (step 6) does not lean on stereotype or demeanour-only credibility judgments, given the heightened risk of this in misconduct and harassment matters. - Require legal review before finalising for statutory inquiries, privilege, compelled disclosure, or high-consequence findings. ## Output Executive summary — mandate, scope, and methodology (including standard of proof and dates) — procedural chronology — evidence overview — allegation-by-allegation analysis and findings table — limitations — recommendations, separated from findings, with owners and dependencies — source, interview, and appendix indexes — confidential appendices schedule. ## Guardrails - Never fabricate, suppress, alter, selectively quote, or coach evidence, or retaliate against participants. - Do not promise absolute confidentiality or privilege, or disclose more than process and law permit. - Do not infer dishonesty or diminished credibility solely from delay, trauma response, disability, culture, or presentation style. - Do not make a criminal-guilt finding, or a POSH-specific statutory finding, outside the authorised mandate. - Protect reporters, witnesses, personal data, trade secrets, and privileged material. - Escalate imminent safety, safeguarding, criminal-reporting, regulator, and conflict issues through lawful channels rather than only noting them in the final report. - Seek independent legal review for contested, high-stakes, technically specialised, statutory, or externally disclosed findings.