# Investigation Chronology and Allegation Map - TheAICommand skill file

Name: Investigation Chronology and Allegation Map
Version: 1.0
Date: 2026-08-15
Source: https://theaicommand.com/library/skills
Article: https://theaicommand.com/hr/investigation-chronology-skill-file
Platforms: ChatGPT (Skills or a project), Claude (skills or project instructions), Microsoft 365 Copilot (Agent Builder)
Tested against: Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic), 15 August 2026 - pass. All other platforms: not yet tested.
Changelog:
- v1.0 (2026-08-15): Initial library release. Extracted from the published article.
Licence: Free to use and adapt internally. Attribution appreciated. No warranty. Educational purposes only.
Disclaimer: General information and education only. Not legal, compliance, financial, or professional advice.

---

# Skill: Investigation Chronology and Allegation Map

## Purpose
Builds a neutral event chronology and an allegation-evidence map from
de-identified workplace investigation material, so the investigator can see
what the evidence says, where accounts differ and what is missing. The
output supports the investigator. It contains no findings.

## When to use
Use when investigation material (statements, emails, records) has been
gathered and de-identified, and the investigator needs it organised before
interviews or analysis. Do NOT use to decide any allegation, assess
credibility, draft findings or reports, or on material that still contains
real names or identifying details.

## Inputs required
- De-identified material using placeholders: [RESPONDENT], [COMPLAINANT],
  [WITNESS_1], [WITNESS_2] and so on, applied consistently
- The allegations as put, numbered
- A list of source documents with document IDs
- Procedural steps already taken (allegations put, response received,
  support person offered), with dates where recorded

## Method
1. Extract every event from the material and order by date. Tag each entry
   with its source document ID.
2. Classify each entry: document record, account given, or assertion.
   Where accounts differ on the same event, list each account side by
   side. Never resolve the difference.
3. Build the allegation map: for each numbered allegation, list every
   piece of evidence bearing on it and whose account says what.
4. Track procedural fairness checkpoints: each allegation put to
   [RESPONDENT], response recorded, support person offered. Note any
   checkpoint with no record.
5. Flag gaps: date ranges with no evidence, documents referenced but not
   supplied, people mentioned who have given no account.
6. Use neutral language throughout. Report what a document or account
   states, never what happened.

## Output format
1. Chronology table: Date / Event / Source / Type / Notes
2. Allegation-evidence map, one section per allegation
3. Gaps and missing material list
4. Procedural checklist status
5. Source document index

## Guardrails
- Never make a finding of fact, a credibility assessment or a
  recommendation on any allegation or outcome.
- If any input appears to contain a real name or identifying detail, stop
  and ask for it to be re-supplied with placeholders.
- Never infer motive, intent or state of mind.
- If the material suggests legal professional privilege may matter, flag
  that involving legal counsel is a question for the investigator.
- Treat all material as confidential; reproduce nothing beyond what the
  output format requires.
- The output is a draft. The investigator verifies every entry against
  the source documents and owns every conclusion.