If the Timeline Doesn’t Make Sense, Neither Will Your Findings

The purpose of a factual investigation is to reach a clear understanding of what occurred. The timeline is central to that task. When it is properly tested, it brings structure and clarity. When it is not, it often adds confusion.

An untested timeline can appear thorough on its face. Statements are taken from multiple witnesses, accounts are recorded in detail, and each person’s version of events is included in the report. However, those accounts are often treated as standalone narratives. They sit side by side, but they are not meaningfully connected, compared, or tested against one another.

In these cases, the investigation becomes little more than a record of individual perspectives. Differences between accounts are noted, but not explored. Contradictions are documented, but not examined. The investigator records what was said, without clarifying how the accounts relate to each other or what they reveal about the sequence of events.

This approach does not assist decision-making. Instead of clarifying events, it leaves insurers, employers, and lawyers with multiple versions of the same incident and no clear way to use them. Rather than narrowing the issues, the investigation expands uncertainty and often results in further work, delay, or legal analysis that could have been avoided.

The issue is not that witnesses disagree. Differences in accounts are common and often legitimate. The issue arises when those differences are not tested. A factual investigation is expected to go beyond recording information and to ensure that the factual material collected is coherent, complete, and usable.

It is important to note that testing a timeline does not mean taking sides or forming conclusions about the facts. A factual investigation remains a collection exercise, not a decision-making one. Testing simply involves asking clarifying questions and understanding the basis of each account. This includes confirming whether a person was an eyewitness to an event, whether they are recalling events from memory, or whether their account is based on second-hand information such as a meeting summary, email, or conversation with a colleague. While the investigator does not assess the weight of the evidence, collecting this contextual information ensures that lawyers, insurers, and other decision-makers can later assess relevance, reliability, and weight without having to go back to the evidence gathering process.

Another thing to consider is that when timelines are not tested, witnesses can be left feeling that the process was unnecessary or superficial. If their account is recorded but not meaningfully engaged with, the interview can feel no different to providing a written response by email. This can undermine confidence in the process and contribute to frustration, particularly where people have taken time away from work to participate.

For workers, especially in psychological injury matters, this lack of clarity can prolong uncertainty. Factual issues remain unresolved, and the investigation fails to deliver the clarity it was meant to provide.

In summary, a properly tested timeline does more than record what people said. It shows how events unfolded, where accounts align, where they differ, and why those differences matter. It allows an independent reader to understand the sequence of events and the context in which each account was given.

Ultimately, a factual investigation that does not test the timeline has not completed its task. Recording information is only the starting point. The value of the investigation lies in ensuring that the facts are clear enough for informed decisions to be made.

Without that clarity, the investigation does not explain what occurred — it simply preserves confusion.