Prepare findings without delegating credibility

MaintainedLast reviewed

Key facts

Human involvement
RedLawyer-led
How AI is used
Organise the interview notes and documents under the allegation headings so the investigator can write the findings.
What the lawyer must review
  • Do not adopt generated findings
  • Write the findings from the documents and interviews you have considered
Written for / version
Written for New South Wales

The work product

Forum. The workplace, and any later Fair Work or discrimination process

Produce. An indexed bundle under each allegation, plus findings the investigator has written.

Have ready. Interview notes; The chronology; The allegation list.

Example of the limit. Two accounts of the same meeting stay as two accounts. The index does not say which one is true.

Stop and hand it back when

  • The draft contains a proposed finding or a percentage likelihood.
  • A document in the bundle was not put to the person who should have had a chance to answer it, and the draft ignores that.

Sources for this task were checked on 2026-09-22.

Who does what

Who does what
RoleWhat they do
AssistanceSupporting preparation only. Organise the interview notes and documents under the allegation headings so the investigator can write the findings. Substantive advice, judgement and any restricted content remain with the responsible human.
LawyerPerform the substantive analysis and decisions. Independently check any permitted supporting work and approve the exact output for its intended use.

Checklist

  1. Sort material under the existing allegations only.
  2. Do not add a credibility score or a recommended sanction.
  3. Note if a person was not given a chance to answer a document you rely on.
  4. The investigator writes and signs the findings.

Sources

Suggested working checks from the linked public sources. Read the source and confirm it applies to this forum and this date. The checks do not approve software or record that the work is done.

Related tasks

Related tools