The Difference Between Information and Evidence

One of the biggest misconceptions in factual investigations is that investigators should record everything an interviewee says.

However, this is just not the case!

A factual statement is not a transcript of an interview. Nor is it a place to record every opinion, rumour, assumption, or piece of speculation raised during a conversation. Its purpose is to record relevant factual evidence that assists a decision-maker to understand what occurred. Knowing what to leave out is just as important as knowing what to include.

Information is not always evidence

During an interview, people naturally move between facts, opinions, assumptions, emotions, and things they have heard from others. This is entirely normal. Interviewees are simply explaining events as they experienced them.

Rather than recording everything that is said, the investigator must identify what information actually assists the investigation and what information requires further enquiry before it becomes useful. A well-written factual statement should help a decision-maker understand what happened. It should not leave them trying to determine which parts of the statement are facts and which parts are assumptions.

Understanding the different types of information

Not all information provided during an interview is equally useful in helping to establish the facts. Below are some of the common types of information investigators encounter during interviews, together with an overview of what each can (and cannot) tell you, and how it should be approached.

Direct evidence

Information is direct evidence when it comes from the interviewee's own observations (e.g., what they saw or heard for themselves). For example:

• "I attended the Monthly Capacity Planning meeting on 11 October 2024"

• "I heard my manager Tara McDonald say..."

• "I received the email from Steven Smith, Human Resources on 12 February 2025 titled: Upcoming Excursion."

These statements establish facts based on the interviewee's own experience. They can usually be tested against other witnesses or documentary evidence and are often highly relevant to the investigation. Other information however, requires much greater care.

Hearsay

Hearsay is information the interviewee obtained from another person. For example:

• "Another employee told me HR had already decided to terminate me."

• "Judy told me Martin was spreading rumours about me because I was off work for an extended period."

• "Ferris told me that the reason Terrance held that training was because he was sick of us complaining."

This information may explain why the interviewee holds a particular belief, and it may identify an important line of enquiry. However, by itself it does not establish that the statement is a true.

Opinion

Interviewees also express opinions. For example:

• "My supervisor was bullying me."

• "They were rude to all of us."

• "She was threatened by me."

This tells us how the interviewee viewed the situation, but it does not explain what actually happened. The opinion itself rarely assists the decision-maker.

Assumptions and speculation

People also make assumptions or speculate about matters they do not personally know. Statements such as:

• "I think management wanted me gone."

• "They probably made that decision because I made a complaint."

• "She made that comment because I think she is personal friends with my boss."

These statement may genuinely reflect the interviewee's beliefs, but they do not establish that those events actually occurred. Unless a person's belief is itself relevant to the investigation, speculation is generally of little assistance in determining the facts.

How to get to the facts

Recognising hearsay, opinion or speculation is only the first step. The real skill lies in converting those statements into useful factual evidence.

This is achieved by continually asking questions that move the interviewee away from conclusions and back towards facts. Rather than accepting broad statements at face value, investigators should work backwards to understand the events that gave rise to them.

This often involves asking questions that establish fact, as outlined in the following focus areas:

Focus Area	Questions to Ask
The Source	How do you know that? Did you see it yourself, hear it directly, or did someone tell you?
The Detail	What exactly was said or done? What specific words, actions or behaviours led you to describe the situation that way?
The Context	When did it happen? Where did it occur? Who was present? Was it part of a formal meeting, an informal conversation, an email, or another interaction?
The Foundation	Is this something you personally observed, or are you drawing an inference based on other events?
The Corroboration	Is there anyone else who witnessed the event? Is there a document, email, diary entry, CCTV footage, policy, or other evidence that may assist in understanding what occurred?

Each question takes the investigator one step closer to understanding what actually happened.

Sometimes the answer confirms that the interviewee has direct knowledge of the event. Sometimes it reveals that the information is based on assumption or something they were told by another person. Both outcomes are valuable because they allow the investigator to accurately identify the nature of the evidence being collected.

The objective is not to challenge the interviewee or discredit their account. It is to understand the basis of what they are saying so the information recorded in the statement is factual, accurate and genuinely useful to the decision-maker.

Why this matters

Factual investigations frequently form the basis of significant decisions. Insurers determine liability. Employers make employment decisions. Lawyers assess legal strategy. Matters may later proceed to internal review, litigation or tribunal.

Those decisions are only as good as the evidence on which they are based.

If a factual statement is filled with opinions, assumptions, speculation or second-hand information that has not been tested, the decision-maker is left to separate fact from belief. That is not their role. Their role is to assess the evidence—not determine what the evidence actually is.

A well-conducted factual investigation does that work before the statement reaches the decision-maker. It clearly distinguishes between what the interviewee personally observed, what they were told by others, what they believe, and what can be independently verified. This allows the decision-maker to focus on assessing the evidence, rather than trying to untangle it.

Ultimately, the value of a factual investigation is not measured by the volume of information collected. It is measured by how clearly it helps the decision-maker understand what occurred and make a fair, informed and defensible decision.