13/05/2026
The distinction matters when findings are reviewed by a regulator, tested in proceedings, or relied upon to demonstrate corrective action to a client or insurer.
The characteristics of a defensible investigation finding:
The finding is supported by documented evidence, not inference. Conclusions drawn from interviews alone, without corroborating physical evidence, site observations, or documentary records, are vulnerable to challenge.
The investigation method is identifiable. Using an established methodology — ICAM, Taproot, or another recognised framework — provides a transparent basis for how the analysis was conducted. An investigation without a discernible methodology is difficult to defend.
Contributing factors and systemic causes are identified alongside the immediate cause. A finding that stops at the proximate cause addresses what happened, not why — and a 'why' that extends only to the last person in the chain of events is rarely the complete picture.
The investigator has appropriate independence. An investigation conducted entirely by personnel within the work group where the incident occurred has an inherent conflict of interest that an external reviewer will identify.
These are not complex requirements. But they require deliberate process — and that process is easier to establish before an investigation is needed than during one.
www.safetyandriskconsulting.com.au
