---
title: "Prepare investigation findings without a credibility conclusion from the tool"
url: "https://ailawframework.com/practice/employment-and-workplace-relations/prepare-findings-without-delegating-credibility/united-states"
type: "task_jurisdiction_version"
site: "AI Law Framework"
id: "A49-R20260922-3-US"
practice_area: "Employment & Workplace Relations (incl. WHS)"
tier: "red"
lawyer_review: "required"
jurisdictions: ["US"]
last_reviewed: "2026-10-22"
---

# Prepare investigation findings without a credibility conclusion from the tool

> List each allegation, the documents the lawyer has marked, and the interview notes the lawyer has marked. Write no finding and make no comment on credibility.

Canonical page: https://ailawframework.com/practice/employment-and-workplace-relations/prepare-findings-without-delegating-credibility/united-states  
Last reviewed: 2026-10-22

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 | List each allegation, the documents the lawyer has marked, and the interview notes the lawyer has marked. Write no finding and make no comment on credibility. |
| What the lawyer must review | You write the findings. You decide what is proved and whether a witness is believed. Formal Opinion 512: a generated conclusion is not your judgment, and uncritical reliance can fail Model Rule 1.1. Nothing in the list is copied into the findings unless you write it. Model Rule 1.6: keep the file out of a public tool. |
| Written for | United States |
| Applies to | [Prepare findings without delegating credibility](https://ailawframework.com/practice/employment-and-workplace-relations/prepare-findings-without-delegating-credibility.md) |

## Checking plan

- What the AI does: List each allegation, the documents the lawyer has marked, and the interview notes the lawyer has marked. Write no finding and make no comment on credibility.
- Basis: Checked against the linked sources on 22 October 2026. Confirm the current instrument before reliance.

## Notes

- The list is the raw material. It is not the finding.
- Credibility is the lawyer's. The tool writes no sentence about who is believed.

## Sources

- [ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools (29 July 2024)](https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-512.pdf) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [ABA Model Rule 1.1, Comment 8](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_1_competence/comment_on_rule_1_1/) (checked 2026-10-22)
- [ABA Model Rule 1.6, Confidentiality of Information](https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_6_confidentiality_of_information/) (checked 2026-10-22)

## Forms and precedents for this task

| Form or precedent | Kind | AI level | Summary |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| [Workplace investigation terms of reference, allegation schedule and interview plan](https://ailawframework.com/precedents/employment-and-workplace-relations/workplace-investigation-terms-of-reference.md) | Policy | Yellow | Terms of reference for a workplace misconduct investigation: decision maker, investigator, scope, particularised allegations, standard of proof, procedural fairness, interviews, evidence,… |

Signed-in accounts can read the full text of each one.

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