Findings and credibility templates
Findings of Fact Template: Substantiated, Not Substantiated, Inconclusive
Last updated 2026-07-30
A finding of fact is a statement about what happened, made to a stated standard, supported by identified evidence. It is not a statement about whether policy was breached — that comes afterward — and keeping the two apart is what makes both reviewable.
This worksheet forces the separation. For each allegation you record the facts found, the evidence relied on, the conflicts resolved and how, and the outcome. The policy question is asked only once the facts are settled.
Jurisdiction
Written primarily against US federal standards — EEOC guidance, NLRB decisions and Title VII case law — and against general investigative practice. State law, sector rules (public employers, education, regulated industries) and collective agreements impose additional requirements this page does not cover. Where a page borrows a concept from another jurisdiction it says so explicitly. Outside the US, treat the structure as transferable and the legal references as not.
Findings of Fact template
Free Word download, no email required. Or open it in Professional Drafter — it lands in your template library, ready to draft against.
When to use this document
- Working through findings before drafting the report's findings section.
- Where multiple allegations need consistent treatment against the same standard.
- As a check that every allegation in the matrix has reached an outcome.
Worked example
Fictional scenario, continuing the dispatch-team matter. The worksheet for Allegation 1, showing the wall this document exists to enforce: facts first, in plain declarative sentences with a source against each, and the policy question asked only afterwards.
Standard applied
Preponderance of the evidence — whether each allegation is more likely than not to have occurred. This is a workplace finding, not a legal determination of liability.
Allegation 1 — facts found
Allegation as stated: that between February and May 2026 the respondent made repeated comments about the complainant's appearance.
Facts found:
1. On 14 March 2026 the respondent sent the complainant a message reading 'looking good today, as always'.
2. On at least two further occasions between February and May 2026 the respondent commented on the complainant's appearance in the dispatch office.
3. Witness A was present for two such comments and describes them as making her uncomfortable as a bystander.
4. The respondent accepts making comments about the complainant's appearance on at least two occasions.
Note what is not here. 'The respondent behaved inappropriately' is not a finding of fact — it is an evaluation, and it belongs in the policy analysis below.
Evidence relied on
Fact 1 — Appendix 4, message thread, retrieved from the complainant's handset 9 Jun 2026 (evidence log item 4).
Fact 2 — Complainant interview 9 Jun; partially corroborated by Witness A interview 12 Jun.
Fact 3 — Witness A interview 12 Jun.
Fact 4 — Respondent interview 19 Jun.
Each fact carries a source. A fact without one is an assertion.
Conflicts resolved
The complainant describes five occasions; the respondent accepts two. I have not resolved the precise number, because it is not material: the finding requires repetition, and repetition is established on the respondent's own account. Recording that I left it unresolved deliberately is the point — an unexplained silence reads as an oversight.
Outcome
- Outcome:
- SUBSTANTIATED.
- Basis:
- the respondent's own account establishes repeated comments, corroborated by Witness A and by the written message at Appendix 4.
Policy analysis — only now
Section 4.1 of the Respectful Workplace Policy (v3, eff. 1 Jan 2025) prohibits 'comments about a colleague's physical appearance that a reasonable person would find unwelcome'. On the facts found, the comments were about the complainant's appearance, were repeated, and were found unwelcome (see Allegation 2). Section 4.1 was breached.
This paragraph is the first place in the worksheet where a policy is mentioned. That ordering is deliberate: doing it the other way round invites reasoning backwards from a conclusion to the facts that would support it.
Completeness check
Allegations 1, 2 and 3 from the matrix each appear in this worksheet with an outcome. Allegation 3 is recorded as inconclusive. No allegation is unaddressed.
Section-by-section guide
What each section is for, what a good one contains, and where they typically go wrong.
1.Standard applied
Recorded once, at the top, and applied to every allegation. Ordinarily the preponderance of the evidence. Note explicitly that a finding is a workplace determination and not a legal conclusion.
2.Allegation and facts found (repeat per allegation)
State the facts you find, in plain declarative sentences, before evaluating them. 'On 14 March the respondent sent the message at Appendix 4' is a finding of fact. 'The respondent behaved inappropriately' is not — it is a conclusion.
3.Evidence relied on
Each fact tied to its source, with evidence log or appendix references. A fact with no source reference is an assertion.
4.Conflicts resolved
Cross-reference the credibility assessment for any conflict that had to be resolved to reach these facts. Where a conflict was immaterial, note that it was left unresolved deliberately.
5.Outcome
Substantiated, not substantiated, or inconclusive. Use the words consistently across every allegation, and distinguish 'not substantiated' (the evidence does not support it) from 'inconclusive' (the evidence does not permit a determination either way). They are different outcomes and readers rely on the distinction.
6.Policy analysis (after the facts are settled)
Only now. Which provision the found facts engage, and whether it was breached. Keeping this after the findings prevents the common error of reasoning backwards from a policy conclusion to the facts that would support it.
7.Completeness check
Confirm every numbered allegation from the matrix has an outcome here. This is the last point at which an orphaned allegation can be caught cheaply.
Common mistakes
The failure modes that show up most often when this document is reviewed later.
Writing conclusions as facts
'Behaved unprofessionally' is an evaluation. The finding of fact is what was said or done; the evaluation belongs in the policy analysis.
Using 'not substantiated' and 'inconclusive' interchangeably
They mean materially different things to anyone reading the report later, particularly a party. Define both and use them consistently.
Doing the policy analysis first
It invites reasoning backwards — deciding a breach occurred and then assembling facts that fit.
Questions
- Do I number findings to match the allegations?
- Yes, and reuse the allegation numbers even where two allegations produce one finding. Findings numbered 1–4 against allegations numbered 1–6 is exactly how an allegation gets quietly lost, and it is the first thing a careful reviewer checks.
- A new allegation surfaced after I drafted my findings. What now?
- Do not fold it into the existing findings. Ask the commissioning party to extend scope in writing, put the new allegation to the respondent in full, and record the date the scope changed. If it is out of scope, hand it back. The one thing that will not survive review is a finding on something the respondent was never given a chance to answer.
- Can I make a finding when the respondent refused to be interviewed?
- Yes. Record the invitation, the refusal and any reason, and note in the methodology that findings were made without their account. What you must not do is treat the refusal itself as evidence supporting the allegations — the finding has to rest on the evidence you do have.
- What is the difference between 'not substantiated' and 'inconclusive'?
- 'Not substantiated' means the evidence does not support the allegation. 'Inconclusive' means the evidence does not permit a determination either way — typically an uncorroborated conflict. Neither is a finding that the conduct did not occur, and reports should define the terms they use.
The blank template
Exactly what is in the Word download, so you can see the structure before deciding whether you want it.
Standard applied
Allegation and facts found (repeat per allegation)
Evidence relied on
Conflicts resolved
Outcome
Policy analysis (after the facts are settled)
Completeness check
Download this template
Free Word download, no email required. Or open it in Professional Drafter — it lands in your template library, ready to draft against.
Related templates
Credibility Assessment Template & Example (Workplace Investigation)
A structured credibility assessment template using objective factors — plausibility, corroboration, consistency and motive — with a filled-in worked example showing the reasoning written out.
Allegation Matrix Template & Example
An allegation matrix template that tracks every allegation to its evidence and its finding, so nothing is left unaddressed in the final report.
Workplace Investigation Report Template & Example
A complete workplace investigation report template with a filled-in example report, plus a section-by-section guide covering scope, evidence, credibility, standard of proof and findings.
Discrimination Investigation Report Template & Example
A discrimination investigation report template covering the adverse action, the protected characteristic, comparators and the employer's stated reason.
Policy & Code of Conduct Investigation Report Template
A policy or code-of-conduct breach investigation template — for expenses, timekeeping, misuse of systems, conflicts of interest and similar rule-based allegations.
Inconclusive Investigation Outcome: Honesty Test, Next Steps, Monitoring
Inconclusive means the evidence did not permit a determination. The checks to run before you write it, what the employer can do next, and how to monitor.
This page is a documentation aid, not legal advice. Workplace investigation requirements vary by jurisdiction, sector and policy, and a template cannot tell you what your matter requires. The worked example describes a fictional scenario.