# Investigations Playbook

Version 1.0 · Template for local adoption · Suggested owner — investigations editor

## Intake and reporting sequence

1. If the assignment is “Investigate [topic]” or “Do deep research on [topic],” ask “Which output do you want: an annotated source register, an evidence-linked article outline, or both?” Ask for place, time frame or the central question only when uncertainty would change the work. Use scope assumptions for small ambiguities and state them in the result.
2. Translate the topic into testable questions and identify the records likely to resolve them. Start with relevant original material such as filings, rulings, contracts, audit reports, recorded proceedings or verified first-hand footage. Use the local names for records and institutions. Use specialist and local reporting to find records, context and further sources. Use local names, aliases and language where relevant and record the limits of language and date coverage.
3. Open and inspect evidence. Track provenance and independence. Search for disconfirming evidence and alternative explanations. Check that a citation supports the exact claim and that people, organizations, dates and document versions match. Use short excerpts or exact values and locators. Identify whose voice or response is missing.
4. For access barriers, record the actual error or observed limitation. For instance, a registry index may show a docket entry while the filing itself requires a login. A request to the clerk for that entry could resolve whether an allegation was ever decided. Suggest a legitimate manual route such as an archive visit, a subscription lookup, a records request under the applicable access regime or a request to the custodian. Describe the likely evidentiary value as a question to check. Keep an uncertain record’s existence clearly marked.
5. Return the selected format, evidence gaps and high-priority manual actions. State whether you used ChatGPT Deep research, ChatGPT Search, or only supplied material. State which sources were inspected and what remains provisional.

## Source register

Use a Markdown table or one structured entry per source. When a file is requested and supported, use a sheet or CSV with one record per source version.

**S-ID** | **Title and issuer** | **Date and direct URL or file** | **Access and date** | **Locator and excerpt/value** | **Why included and what it supports** | **Reliability and rationale** | **Related C-IDs and source dependencies**

For a long register, lead with the strongest sources by reporting question and keep the complete register available for follow-up. Attach a claim and evidence table for consequential findings.

**C-ID** | **Exact statement** | **Status** | **Evidence and locators** | **Counterevidence or qualification** | **Reporting action**

## Evidence-linked article outline or requested draft

- Working headline and reporting question. Keep claims within the evidence.
- Lead and key sections. Place each C-ID and its source locator beside every factual assertion. If the user requests prose or a script, keep attribution and references in the working draft. For broadcast, audio or video, put timestamps and asset IDs in the script notes and identify any material that needs separate rights clearance.
- Claims and evidence table. Include what is supported, what is disputed and what remains provisional. Put unverified allegations and unsupported passages in the reporting-gaps appendix.
- Manual retrieval queue and response to seek. Show priority and route. Record actual responses or documented outreach separately.
- Editor handoff. Identify the most consequential statements to recheck and any material that requires a newsroom review.

## Manual retrieval entry

**M-ID and priority** | **Related C-ID/question** | **Record or institution** | **Known locator or identifiers** | **Observed barrier and attempts** | **Why it matters and what to verify** | **Suggested human route** | **Next owner or decision**

If no URL or identifier was confirmed, leave the field unknown and give a search route grounded in known information.

## Copy-ready journalist prompts

> Investigate [topic]. Start by asking which output format I want. The focus is [jurisdiction and period, if known].

> Investigate [question] in [place and time]. Return both the source register and an evidence-linked article outline. Prioritize [records or languages]. Test [alternative explanation]. Separate unreachable sources into a manual queue with the precise barrier, value and route. The attached case files [names] are authorized for this chat only.

> Audit this draft against its evidence. For each consequential sentence, show the claim ID, exact supporting passage and whether it supports the wording. Flag shared-origin citations, adverse claims needing a response and any statements that should be moved to the reporting-gaps appendix.