
Investigative Evidence Architecture
Systematize investigations into defensible, evidence-backed narratives
What You Can Do
Map complex investigations into structured evidence chains that verify source credibility, identify logical gaps, and build defensible narratives before publication. You can validate citations, assess counter-arguments, and document your research methodology in publication-ready format. This ensures your findings withstand scrutiny and legal challenges.
Features
Visualize how sources connect and build a dependency graph showing which claims rest on which evidence, making it easy to spot weak links.
Evaluate each source's reliability, bias, and verifiability on a consistent scale, then identify which claims depend on weaker sources.
Systematically identify missing evidence, uncorroborated claims, and areas where your investigation lacks support, ranked by publication risk.
Check that each fact-claim is properly attributed to a source, and verify the source actually supports the claim (not misquoted or out of context).
Anticipate objections to your narrative and document pre-emptive responses, showing readers you've considered alternative explanations.
Organize findings into a logical sequence that builds a compelling, defensible case—leading with strongest evidence, supporting weaker claims carefully.
Generate standardized investigation logs, source inventories, and methodology notes that prove your work is transparent and reproducible.
Example Output
Evidence Map Output:
- Claim: 'Vendor X inflated invoices'
- Primary: Internal audit (highly credible)
- Corroborating: Email chain from finance lead (direct witness)
- Secondary: Anonymous tip (low credibility, motivates deeper look)
- Gap: No vendor response yet
Gap Analysis:
| Finding | Evidence | Credibility | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Invoice inflation | Audit report | High | ✓ Verified |
| Pattern dates back 2 years | Finance logs | High | ✓ Verified |
| Vendor knew | Email evidence | Medium | ⚠ Partial (needs vendor statement) |
| Systemic vs. accidental | Not yet found | — | ✗ Missing |
Publication-Ready Narrative Outline:
- Lead: What we found (invoice overcharges, $2.3M over 24 months)
- How we found it (methodology: audit files, interviews)
- Evidence timeline (with source attribution for each fact)
- Counter-argument: 'Vendor says it was a billing system error' (then address it)
- Impact & recommendations
What's Included
- Evidence Chain Mapper: Template and workflow to catalog sources, assign credibility scores, and visualize how claims depend on evidence.
- Gap Identifier: Checklist that systematically finds missing evidence, weak links, and uncorroborated claims before publication.
- Citation Verifier: Workflow to audit each fact-claim, verify attribution, and flag misquotes or claims unsupported by cited sources.
- Counter-Argument Analyzer: Prompt-driven tool to anticipate objections, document rebuttals, and strengthen vulnerable points in your narrative.
- Narrative Structure Guide: Framework for organizing findings into a compelling, logical sequence that builds credibility and addresses weaknesses head-on.
- Research Documentation Pack: Reusable templates for investigation logs, source inventories, methodology statements, and audit trails to prove rigor.
Who It's For
- Investigative journalists covering corruption, fraud, or accountability stories
- Legal researchers and trial attorneys preparing evidence-based case narratives
- Compliance auditors and regulators documenting findings for enforcement actions
- Academic researchers and fact-checkers defending peer review and publication
- Forensic analysts and fraud investigators building airtight case files
Best For
- Multi-source, complex investigations requiring ironclad documentation
- High-stakes reporting that may face legal challenge or public scrutiny
- Building defensible case files for audits, enforcement, or litigation
- Structuring research into compelling, credible narratives







