Planning and scoping templates
Allegation Matrix Template & Example
Last updated 2026-07-30
The allegation matrix is the highest-leverage document in an investigation and the one most often skipped. It is a single grid: every allegation down one axis, and against each one the policy engaged, the evidence for, the evidence against, the witnesses who spoke to it, and the eventual finding.
Its function is mechanical — it makes an unaddressed allegation impossible to miss, because the finding column is visibly empty. In multi-allegation matters, where a complaint might contain nine discrete assertions spread across two years, this is the difference between a report that resolves everything and one that quietly loses three of them.
It is also the fastest way to see where the investigation still has work to do. An allegation with nothing in the 'evidence against' column usually means the respondent has not yet been put to it.
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.
Allegation Matrix 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
- Any investigation with more than two allegations.
- Pattern complaints spanning a long period, where incidents blur together.
- When multiple investigators share a matter and need a common view of coverage.
- As the working index behind the findings section of the final report.
Worked example
Fictional scenario. Three allegations from the dispatch-team complaint used throughout this library, shown as matrix rows partway through the investigation — two determined, one still open.
Allegation 1 — repeated comments about appearance (Feb–May 2026)
- Policy:
- Respectful Workplace Policy s4.1 (v3, eff. 1 Jan 2025).
- Supporting:
- Complainant interview 9 Jun (five occasions described); Witness A interview 12 Jun (directly recalls two); message thread 14 Mar (App. 4).
- Contradicting:
- Respondent interview 19 Jun — accepts two comments, characterizes as compliments, denies frequency.
- Witnesses:
- Complainant (9 Jun); Witness A (12 Jun); Witness B (12 Jun — no relevant knowledge); Respondent (19 Jun).
- Outstanding:
- none.
- Finding:
- SUBSTANTIATED — respondent's own account establishes repetition; corroborated by Witness A and the written message.
Allegation 2 — comments continued after being asked to stop (Apr–May 2026)
- Policy:
- Respectful Workplace Policy s4.3.
- Supporting:
- Complainant interview 9 Jun; Witness A recalls her saying she had 'told him to knock it off'; complainant's text to Witness A 8 Apr (App. 5) — 'said something to him yesterday'.
- Note:
- message of 14 Mar (App. 4) pre-dates the request and does not bear on sequence.
- Contradicting:
- Respondent does not recall a request being made; does not deny it.
- Witnesses:
- as above.
- Outstanding:
- none.
- Finding:
- SUBSTANTIATED — request accepted as made; at least one comment followed.
Allegation 3 — physically blocked complainant's path (approx. 17 Apr 2026)
- Policy:
- Respectful Workplace Policy s4.1; Workplace Safety Policy s2.2.
- Supporting:
- Complainant interview 9 Jun, consistent with written complaint 29 May; Witness A recalls complainant distressed near dispatch office, mid-April Friday.
- Contradicting:
- Respondent denies entirely; cannot recall being in that area.
- Witnesses:
- Complainant; Witness A (timing only); Respondent.
- Outstanding:
- CCTV requested 16 Jun — Facilities confirmed 18 Jun corridor camera out of service since Jan 2026. No further evidence available.
- Finding:
- INCONCLUSIVE — no corroboration either way; no motive to fabricate identified on either side.
Section-by-section guide
What each section is for, what a good one contains, and where they typically go wrong.
1.Matrix header
Matter details and the date the matrix was last updated — it is a living document.
2.Allegation entry (repeat per allegation)
One block per numbered allegation. Keep the allegation wording identical to the wording used in the plan and the final report — if it drifts between documents, the cross-referencing breaks and a reviewer will notice.
3.Evidence supporting
What tends to establish the allegation, with a source reference for each item so the final report can cite it directly.
4.Evidence contradicting
What tends against it, including the respondent's account. An empty column here is a signal, not a result — it usually means the allegation has not yet been tested.
5.Witnesses spoken to on this allegation
Which witnesses addressed this specific allegation, and which were asked but had no relevant knowledge. Recording the second group prevents re-interviewing and shows the ground was covered.
6.Outstanding actions
What still needs to be done before this allegation can be determined. When this column is empty across every row, the fact-finding phase is finished.
7.Finding
Substantiated, not substantiated, or inconclusive, with a one-line basis. This column populates the findings section of the report directly.
Common mistakes
The failure modes that show up most often when this document is reviewed later.
Letting the allegation wording drift between documents
If the matrix, the plan and the report each phrase an allegation differently, cross-referencing fails and it looks as though the allegation changed during the investigation.
Only recording evidence that supports the allegation
A matrix with an empty 'contradicting' column across every row is a record of a one-sided investigation, whether or not that is what happened.
Not recording witnesses who had nothing useful to say
That is coverage evidence. Without it, a reviewer cannot tell whether a witness was considered and cleared or never approached.
Attaching the matrix to the report without review
It contains working notes and provisional assessments. Decide deliberately whether it is an appendix or an internal working document.
Questions
- Should the matrix go in the final report as an appendix?
- It can in a multi-allegation matter, but review it first — it is a working document containing provisional assessments and notes to yourself. Either clean it up deliberately for disclosure, or keep it internal and let the findings section carry the same information in finished form.
- An allegation split into two during the investigation. Do I renumber?
- No — renumbering breaks every cross-reference already written into your notes, the plan and any draft findings. Add 3(a) and 3(b) under the original number instead, record the date you split it, and put both to the respondent before making any finding on either.
- The complainant keeps adding allegations. How do I stop the matrix growing forever?
- You do not stop it; you scope it. Each new allegation either falls inside the mandate you were given or it does not. If it does, add it, put it to the respondent, and record the date it was added. If it does not, record it in the matrix as out of scope with the reason, and hand it back to the commissioning party. What you must not do is investigate it informally without it appearing anywhere.
- Should the allegation matrix be included in the final report?
- It can be a useful appendix in a multi-allegation matter, but it is a working document containing provisional assessments. Review it before attaching, or keep it internal and let the findings section carry the same information in finished form.
The blank template
Exactly what is in the Word download, so you can see the structure before deciding whether you want it.
Matrix header
Allegation entry (repeat per allegation)
Evidence supporting
Evidence contradicting
Witnesses spoken to on this allegation
Outstanding actions
Finding
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
Workplace Investigation Plan Template & Example
An investigation plan template covering scope, allegations, witnesses, evidence, sequencing and interim measures — written before the first interview.
Findings of Fact Template: Substantiated, Not Substantiated, Inconclusive
A findings-of-fact worksheet that ties each allegation to the evidence relied on, the standard applied, and a clear substantiated / not substantiated / inconclusive outcome.
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.
Workplace Investigation Checklist: Phases, Clock and Disruptions
A phase-by-phase workplace investigation checklist with the promptness clock, the five-day gap rule, and protocols for when the process is interrupted.
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.