---
title: "Prepare findings without delegating credibility"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/employment-and-workplace-relations/prepare-findings-without-delegating-credibility"
type: "task"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A49-R20260922-3"
practice_area: "Employment & Workplace Relations (incl. WHS)"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
last_reviewed: "2026-09-23"
---

# Prepare findings without delegating credibility

> Organise the interview notes and documents under the allegation headings so the investigator can write the findings.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/employment-and-workplace-relations/prepare-findings-without-delegating-credibility  
Last reviewed: 2026-09-23

Site index for agents: https://ailawframework.com/llms.txt

## Key facts

| Fact | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Practice area | [Employment & Workplace Relations (incl. WHS)](https://ailawframework.com/practice/employment-and-workplace-relations.md) |
| Human involvement | Red: Lawyer writes; AI may check, clarify or collect data |
| 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 / versions | — |

## Checking plan

**Lawyer-led judgement**

The bundle is sorted. The finding is written by the investigator. Credibility is not a column a model fills in.

- What the AI does: Organise the interview notes and documents under the allegation headings so the investigator can write the findings.
- What the lawyer does: Make the findings from the material, including whose account is preferred and why, in the investigator’s own reasons.
- Who reviews: Lawyer competent in the matter and the forum
- Basis: Planning guidance checked against the linked public sources on 22 September 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.
- Why: The traffic light follows the consequence of an error and how much of the output the lawyer must check before it is used.
- Restriction: The lawyer leads the substantive decision. Any assistance stays inside the preparation described for this task.
- Written for: NSW

## Checks the lawyer makes

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.

## Notes

- 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.

## Practical guide

Jurisdiction: The workplace, and any later Fair Work or discrimination process

**Deliverable**: An indexed bundle under each allegation, plus findings the investigator has written.

**Inputs**

- Interview notes
- The chronology
- The allegation list

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

**Stop and escalate 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.

Checked 2026-09-22.

## Sources

- [Fair Work Ombudsman: workplace investigations](https://www.fairwork.gov.au/about-us/compliance-and-enforcement/workplace-investigations) (checked 2026-09-22)
- [Law Society of New South Wales: court protocols on AI, current as at 14 May 2026](https://www.lawsociety.com.au/AI-hub/court-protocols-ai) (checked 2026-09-22)

*Practice guidance for planning and review. Confirm current primary sources and the requirements of the actual matter. This is general information, not legal advice.*