Depth Matters: Why “Who, What, When” Isn’t Enough Without Context

In factual investigations, the answers given by interviewees are often only the starting point. The real value lies in understanding the detail, context, and basis behind those answers.

When we talk about depth in a factual investigation, we are not talking about expanding the enquiry into unrelated areas. We are talking about doubling down on what has already been said — asking further questions of the same person about the same statement so its meaning, source, and surrounding circumstances are properly understood.

This issue arises across many different types of investigations, but to illustrate it in practical terms, the example below is drawn from a psychological injury claim said to have arisen in the context of a performance process.

For example, a worker may say something like, “HR told me I wasn’t performing well.” On its face, that sounds clear. In reality, it tells us very little. Without further probing, the investigation is left with a conclusion rather than the facts that support it.

If an investigator simply records that statement and moves on, critical context is lost. Who in HR said this? What is their role? When did the conversation occur? How was the message delivered — by email, in person, or during a meeting? Each of these details matters because they shape how the information should be understood.

Depth in an investigation comes from asking the next set of questions. If the discussion occurred in person, where did it take place? Was it a scheduled meeting, or an informal conversation? If it was a meeting, was the worker told in advance that their performance would be discussed? How much notice were they given? Were they offered a support person? These are not peripheral details. They go directly to the nature of the interaction and how it would reasonably have been experienced.

The same applies to the substance of what was said. When someone says they were told they were “not performing,” the investigation must establish what that actually meant. Which aspects of performance were raised? Were examples provided? Was this the first time performance concerns had been communicated, or had similar issues been raised previously? Without this detail, the investigation records a label rather than the facts behind it.

It is also necessary to understand what the worker was expected to do in the first place, where performance is central to understanding the claim. This includes whether role expectations were clearly defined, whether appropriate training was provided, and whether policies, procedures, or performance standards existed to guide the work. Without this context, it is not possible to properly assess the significance of any performance concerns raised.

This level of depth is particularly important in psychological injury claims, where perceptions, expectations, and process often matter as much as events themselves. How performance feedback was delivered, whether it was expected, and whether support mechanisms were in place can significantly affect how that interaction is experienced. The Safe Work Australia psychosocial hazard framework recognises that harm often arises from systems of work and management practices, rather than isolated comments taken out of context.

When investigators do not probe beyond high-level statements, they risk mischaracterising what actually occurred. A formal performance discussion conducted in line with policy can look very different to an unexpected conversation in a corridor. An email with clear examples and support options carries different implications to a vague verbal comment. Without depth, those distinctions are lost.

The consequences of shallow questioning are practical. Decision-makers are left without the detail needed to understand the interaction, assess the surrounding circumstances, or determine its relevance to the claim. Workers may feel their experience has been oversimplified, while employers may be exposed to risk because the investigation has not captured how processes were actually applied.

Depth does not mean expanding the investigation unnecessarily. It means following the evidence far — and deep — enough to understand it properly. It requires investigators to move beyond summary statements and ask the questions that turn conclusions into facts.

In factual investigations, statements like “HR told me I wasn’t performing well” are never the end of the enquiry. They are the beginning. Depth is not optional. It is essential to accuracy.