Working PI
by J. Alexander Chilton, LPI GA/SC
In legal due diligence, corporate inquiries, and workplace investigations, facts are not merely informational—they are determinative. Attorneys rely on them to assess liability and shape litigation strategy. Corporate leaders depend on them to manage risk and protect organizational interests. Human resources professionals use them to make decisions that can significantly affect both individual careers and institutional exposure. Within these contexts, the investigator’s role is clear: to develop an accurate, objective, and defensible factual record.
Despite the importance of that mandate, one of the most significant threats to investigative integrity is rarely addressed in practical terms. It is not a matter of competence or diligence, but rather a cognitive vulnerability inherent in human reasoning. This vulnerability is known as confirmation bias, and within investigative practice it is often described as the “narrative trap.” When it takes hold, it can subtly but materially distort the course of an investigation, even when the investigator is experienced and well-intentioned.
Every investigation begins with context. An attorney may present a theory of the case, a corporate client may report suspected misconduct, or a human resources department may initiate an inquiry based on a complaint. These inputs are necessary because they establish scope and direction. However, they are not evidence. The narrative trap begins when this initial context evolves into an assumed conclusion rather than a working hypothesis. At that point, the investigation can shift—often imperceptibly—from an open-ended inquiry into a process aimed at confirming what is already believed to be true. The operative question changes from “What do the facts show?” to “How do we support this position?” and that shift fundamentally alters the integrity of the investigative process.
In practice, confirmation bias does not typically manifest as an overt or easily identifiable flaw. Instead, it emerges through a series of incremental decisions that collectively shape the trajectory of the investigation. An investigator may give greater attention to documents, witnesses, or data sources that align with the initial theory while allocating less effort to alternative lines of inquiry. Interviews may become subtly directional, encouraging responses that reinforce the prevailing narrative rather than eliciting independent accounts. Ambiguous facts may be interpreted in a manner consistent with the working assumption, and information that complicates or contradicts that assumption may be minimized or excluded. Each of these decisions, viewed in isolation, may appear reasonable. Taken together, however, they can produce an investigation that is coherent and persuasive on its face but ultimately incomplete.
The consequences of such an approach are significant, particularly in legal and corporate environments where investigative findings are relied upon to make consequential decisions. Attorneys who base litigation strategy on biased or incomplete findings may find their positions undermined when opposing counsel exposes gaps or inconsistencies. Corporate entities that act on flawed investigations may face legal challenges, including claims of wrongful termination, discrimination, or procedural unfairness. In many cases, the issue is not that the investigation contains inaccurate information, but that it fails to present the full factual landscape. When subjected to scrutiny through discovery, deposition, or internal review, these omissions can become highly consequential, diminishing both the credibility and utility of the investigation.
(story continues)
A common scenario illustrates how easily this dynamic can develop. In a workplace investigation, an allegation of misconduct is made against an employee. The organization initiates an inquiry with the expectation that the allegation has merit. The investigator begins by interviewing individuals identified in the complaint and reviewing supporting documentation. Inconsistencies in the subject’s statements are noted, and corroborating evidence is emphasized. However, less attention is given to identifying witnesses who may offer alternative perspectives or to examining contextual factors that could explain the conduct in question. The resulting report presents a clear and internally consistent narrative, but it may lack balance and fail to address competing explanations. If challenged, the investigation may be criticized not for what it includes, but for what it omits.
Avoiding this outcome requires more than general awareness of bias; it requires a structured and disciplined approach to investigative work. One of the most effective methods for mitigating confirmation bias is the adoption of a competing hypothesis framework. Rather than relying on a single narrative, this approach requires the investigator to identify multiple plausible explanations at the outset and to evaluate each of them systematically against the available evidence. By doing so, the investigator reframes the objective of the inquiry. The goal is no longer to confirm a particular theory, but to determine which explanation is most consistent with the totality of the facts.
The application of this framework begins with the deliberate formulation of alternative hypotheses. In the context of a workplace investigation, for example, the investigator might consider the possibility that the alleged misconduct occurred as reported, that the conduct occurred but was misinterpreted or taken out of context, or that the allegation is unfounded or influenced by unrelated factors. By articulating these possibilities explicitly, the investigator creates a structure within which evidence can be evaluated more objectively. Evidence collection is then designed to test each of these hypotheses rather than to support a single narrative. This requires a comprehensive approach to witness identification, document review, and information gathering, ensuring that the investigation captures the full range of relevant facts.
Equally important is the manner in which evidence is evaluated. Within a competing hypothesis framework, particular weight is given to information that challenges a given explanation. Evidence that contradicts a hypothesis is often more informative than evidence that supports it, because it helps eliminate incorrect conclusions. This analytical discipline requires investigators to engage actively with conflicting information rather than disregarding it. It also necessitates a willingness to revise or abandon initial assumptions in light of new evidence.
Another critical component of this approach is the avoidance of premature conclusions. Once an investigator forms a definitive view too early in the process, subsequent analysis tends to align with that view, reinforcing bias. By delaying conclusions until all relevant evidence has been collected and assessed, the investigator preserves the integrity of the analytical process. The final stage of the investigation reporting must also reflect this discipline. A well-constructed report presents findings in a clear, chronological manner, documents both supporting and contradictory evidence, and avoids speculative or conclusory language. Its purpose is not to advocate for a particular outcome, but to provide decision-makers with a reliable factual record upon which to base their judgments.
For attorneys, corporate clients, and human resources professionals, the ability to recognize the characteristics of a high-quality investigation is essential. Investigations that are comprehensive, methodologically transparent, and grounded in neutral language are inherently more reliable. They provide a more complete understanding of the facts and are better equipped to withstand scrutiny. Conversely, investigations that appear overly polished or conclusory may warrant closer examination, particularly if they lack evidence of balanced fact development.
Clients play an important role in shaping the investigative process. The way an assignment is framed can influence the investigator’s approach. When instructions are presented as conclusions, they may inadvertently encourage confirmation bias. By contrast, framing the assignment as a request for objective fact-finding reinforces the expectation of neutrality. Engaging investigators who prioritize methodological rigor and who are willing to challenge assumptions is a critical component of effective risk management.
At its core, the issue of confirmation bias is one of professional responsibility. Investigators operating in legal and corporate environments are entrusted with developing factual records that may influence significant decisions and withstand external scrutiny. The standard they must meet is not simply whether their findings are persuasive, but whether they are complete, objective, and defensible. That standard cannot be achieved when an investigation is driven by a single, untested narrative.
Confirmation bias is a practical and pervasive risk that affects investigations across disciplines. It arises naturally from the human tendency to seek coherence and consistency, but in investigative work, that tendency must be actively managed. The adoption of a competing hypothesis framework provides a structured means of doing so, enabling investigators to produce findings that are more balanced, more accurate, and more resilient under scrutiny.
For those who rely on professional investigative work—whether in legal due diligence, corporate governance, or workplace management, the implications are clear. The value of an investigation is not determined by how effectively it supports an initial assumption, but by how rigorously it tests that assumption against the facts. In the end, the objective is not to confirm what is suspected, but to establish what is factually true.
About the Author
Alex Chilton is a licensed private investigator in Georgia and South Carolina and Managing Partner at CGA Solutions. Alex has been a licensed private investigator for 26 years and has 11 years’ experience working in law enforcement. Alex has specialized training in Cognitive Interviewing, Forensic Statement Analysis, High Risk Interviews related to Terrorism and Hostage Negotiations. Alex specializes in legal due diligence, business/corporate investigations, and HR investigations. CGA Solutions provides objective, fact-driven investigative services designed to support defensible decision-making in complex matters.
We’re always listening. Send your story submission/idea to the Editor: kendra@orep.org.
