An investigation source-verification checklist helps preserve where information originated, what it actually supports, and what remains uncertain. Finding information is not the same as verifying it: three websites repeating one interview are not three independent sources.
Seven checks before relying on information
- Identify the origin: who created the information, when, and where the underlying record can be found in an approved location.
- Find the original: distinguish a primary record from an article or summary repeating it.
- Check the version: look for revisions, missing pages, attachments, or edited extracts.
- Separate dates: occurrence, creation, publication, and access dates may differ.
- Read the actual claim: don't turn "scheduled" into "completed," or "reported" into "verified."
- Assess independence: repeated accounts may share a single source.
- Record uncertainty: document limitations, conflicting material, and an appropriate next action.
Fictional three-source example
A staff interview mentions an equipment inspection on October 12. A bulletin quotes that interview, while a maintenance-log copy bears October 13. Use separate source references and show the relationship between them.
| Source | Information | Verification need |
|---|---|---|
| SRC-001 Interview | Recollection of October 12 | Clarify basis and timing |
| SRC-002 Bulletin | Repeats SRC-001 | Not independent corroboration |
| SRC-003 Log copy | Entry dated October 13 | Locate original; confirm provenance and what date means |
It would be misleading to call the inspection date established merely by tallying the number of references. The records could describe different stages of an inspection or contain transcription or date-entry differences. Preserve those possibilities without reaching unsupported conclusions.
Distinguish authentic records from verified claims
A document may have a known origin yet contain a mistaken statement; an accurate statement may be repeated by several dependent sources. Consider separately whether the record is genuine, complete, relevant, and sufficient to support the claim under review.
Use defined verification labels
A small vocabulary can help: received, origin identified, under review, independently corroborated, disputed, and unresolved. Define what each status means for your team. A colored spreadsheet cell or a successful upload is not proof of accuracy.
Five-point quality review
- Can another authorized reviewer locate the original from the source ID?
- Did the summary preserve meaning and context?
- Were publication and access dates distinguished from event dates?
- Does supposed corroboration actually have an independent origin?
- Are contradictions and pending checks visible, with appropriate owners?
Put the method to work
Practice source references with the free timeline worksheet. The $19 Source & Evidence Documentation Pack organizes source records and follow-up. The $79 Case Management System connects sources to broader case documentation. For side-by-side review, see the Evidence Matrix Guide.
Frequently asked questions
Do three websites mean three independent sources?
No. Trace each account to its origin. Repetition of one report does not create additional independent evidence.
Should a disputed source be removed?
Not merely because it conflicts. Document the reason for the dispute and follow applicable retention and investigative procedures.
Does the checklist authenticate evidence?
No. It is an organizational aid, not forensic validation, secure evidence storage, or a chain-of-custody procedure.
General organizational guidance; not legal advice or an official investigative standard. Use only authorized sources and approved storage.