Credibility Assessment
Evaluating accounts, not detecting lies
Evidence-based assessment of accounts, not lie detection, for public and private sector investigators. Sixty lessons in ten modules cover purpose and boundaries, perception and memory, contamination, examining the account, corroboration and evidence quality, context without assumptions, testing accounts fairly, competing explanations and your own bias, and findings and documentation, then close with six assessment workshops in public, corporate, and private settings.
In production now; lessons are released in teaching order.
Module 1: Purpose and Boundaries
Top ↑- 1
What Credibility Assessment Is
Evaluating specific accounts and claims; identifying support, contradictions, and uncertainty; distinguishing assessment from lie detection.
- 2
Credibility Versus Reliability
Sincerity and factual accuracy as separate questions; the possibility of an honest mistake; assessing individual statements within a larger account.
- 3
Start With the Evidence, Not the Person
Defining the claim under examination; identifying available evidence; separating first impressions from supported findings.
- 4
Your Role and the Decision Being Made
Criminal, corporate, and private investigative assignments; investigative assessment versus the final determination; identifying who owns the decision and applicable standard.
- 5
Why Demeanor and Body Language Mislead
The limitations of behavioral indicators; alternative explanations for nervousness, gaze, or movement; recording observations without treating them as a verdict.
- 6
A Repeatable Assessment Process
Define the claim and identify its source; test it against evidence and competing explanations; record the conclusion, limitations, and remaining questions.
Module 2: Perception and Memory
Top ↑- 7
How Memory Works
Encoding, retention, and retrieval; remembering as reconstruction; separating memory from a recording of the event.
- 8
Opportunity to Observe
Position, distance, lighting, and duration; obstructions, distractions, and divided attention; what the person could reasonably perceive.
- 9
Normal Memory Errors in Honest People
Omissions and mistaken details; confusion between similar events; errors in sequence, duration, and timing.
- 10
Where a Remembered Detail Came From
Direct perception versus later information; inference, discussion, and repeated exposure; asking how the person knows a particular detail.
- 11
Confidence and Accuracy
What the person initially expressed; conditions under which confidence was recorded; later feedback, repetition, and changes in certainty.
- 12
Time and Repeated Remembering
Delay between event and account; repeated interviews and retellings; distinguishing recovered detail from demonstrated accuracy.
Module 3: Contamination and Account Development
Top ↑- 13
How Accounts Become Contaminated
Information encountered after the event; mixing personal recollection with outside material; reconstructing the account’s development.
- 14
Interviewer Influence
Leading questions and embedded assumptions; confirming reactions and corrective feedback; preserving the person’s own wording.
- 15
Witness Discussion and Shared Accounts
Conversations between people involved; shared terminology and exchanged details; distinguishing agreement from independent confirmation.
- 16
Media, Messages, and Document Exposure
News, social posts, photographs, and records; what the person saw before each account; tracking when new details first appeared.
- 17
Repetition, Preparation, and Rehearsal
Why an account may become more polished; familiar wording versus independent recollection; avoiding automatic conclusions about preparation.
- 18
Preserving the Earliest Available Account
Locating recordings, messages, notes, and reports; identifying what was actually said; comparing versions without assuming the first is always correct.
Module 4: Examining the Account
Top ↑- 19
Break the Account Into Testable Claims
Separate actions, observations, times, and identities; distinguish firsthand claims from interpretations; identify which claims matter to the investigation.
- 20
Consistency Within One Account
Apparent contradictions and missing transitions; ambiguous language and misunderstood questions; clarifying before assigning significance.
- 21
Consistency Across Accounts
Comparing statements given at different times; accounting for different questions and contexts; distinguishing material changes from added detail.
- 22
Detail and Verifiability
Specific details that can be checked; descriptive richness versus evidentiary value; avoiding the assumption that more detail means more truth.
- 23
Plausibility and the Common Sense Trap
Expectations about how people normally behave; personal experience versus supporting evidence; testing an unusual account without dismissing it.
- 24
Omissions, Additions, and Material Differences
Whether the earlier question invited the missing information; the importance of the changed detail; what further inquiry could resolve the difference.
Module 5: Corroboration and Evidence Quality
Top ↑- 25
Independent Versus Circular Corroboration
Tracing each source to its origin; recognizing repeated versions of one source; identifying genuinely separate support.
- 26
What the Evidence Actually Corroborates
Opportunity, presence, timing, or the disputed act; supporting one detail without establishing the whole account; writing the connection precisely.
- 27
Evaluating Records and Documents
Origin, authorship, completeness, and context; contemporaneous records versus later reconstructions; what a record cannot establish by itself.
- 28
Evaluating Digital Material
Original files versus screenshots or excerpts; account attribution, timestamps, and missing context; identifying when technical verification is needed.
- 29
Missing Evidence and Negative Results
Whether evidence would reasonably be expected; whether the search was capable of finding it; distinguishing an unsuccessful search from proof of absence.
- 30
Building an Evidence Comparison
Support and contradictions for each material claim; source independence and evidentiary limitations; gaps that require further investigation.
Module 6: Context Without Assumptions
Top ↑- 31
Motive and Bias on All Sides
Interests, incentives, relationships, and pressures; potential influence versus demonstrated distortion; applying the same scrutiny to every source.
- 32
Trauma and the Telling of an Account
Possible effects on attention, recall, and presentation; variation between people and circumstances; avoiding assumptions that trauma establishes truth or explains every discrepancy.
- 33
Stress, Fatigue, Intoxication, and Other Conditions
Conditions during the event versus during the interview; documented effects versus speculation; limits of the investigator’s expertise.
- 34
Language, Culture, and Communication Differences
Interpretation, translation, and unfamiliar terminology; different communication styles and expectations; checking meaning before treating an answer as inconsistent.
- 35
Disability, Neurodivergence, and Accommodations
Individual communication and processing needs; appropriate accommodations and specialist assistance; avoiding credibility judgments based on atypical presentation.
- 36
Delay, Continued Contact, Withdrawal, and Recantation
Establishing what happened and when; exploring explanations without prescribing one; testing the account against the available evidence.
Module 7: Testing Accounts Fairly
Top ↑- 37
Plan What Needs to Be Tested
Identify material uncertainties; develop questions capable of distinguishing explanations; prioritize checks with meaningful evidentiary value.
- 38
Obtain the Account Before Supplying Details
Open invitations and uninterrupted narration; clarification without introducing unreported information; preserving the original account for later comparison.
- 39
Strategic Use of Evidence
The purpose and timing of disclosure; what the account establishes before disclosure; evaluating the explanation without treating surprise as proof.
- 40
Clarifying Inconsistencies With the Alignment Method
Identify the specific discrepancy neutrally; invite and accurately document the explanation; evaluate the explanation against other evidence.
- 41
Test Explanations Through Follow Up
Identify checkable details in the explanation; seek records, witnesses, or other independent evidence; record both confirming and disconfirming results.
- 42
Recognize When Further Questioning Adds Little
Repetition without new information; pressure, fatigue, and the risk of changing an account; choosing another evidence source or recording an unresolved issue.
Module 8: Competing Explanations and Investigator Bias
Top ↑- 43
Confirmation Bias and Tunnel Vision
Forming an early preferred explanation; selective questioning and evidence collection; deliberately looking for information that could change the assessment.
- 44
Anchoring, Status, and Reputation
The influence of the first account received; rank, confidence, familiarity, and professional standing; evaluating claims without substituting reputation for evidence.
- 45
Team Influence and Institutional Pressure
Shared assumptions and repeated conclusions; expectations from supervisors, clients, or colleagues; preserving independent analysis and documented disagreement.
- 46
Build Competing Explanations
Identify plausible alternatives grounded in the facts; specify what each explanation would predict; avoid inventing possibilities that cannot meaningfully be tested.
- 47
Weigh Competing Accounts Without Independent Eyewitnesses
Evaluate each account on its own evidentiary support; look for records, surrounding circumstances, and other indirect evidence; recognize when the available information cannot resolve the conflict.
- 48
Update the Assessment When Evidence Changes
Identify which claims the new evidence affects; revisit earlier reasoning and conclusions; preserve the reasons for the revised assessment.
Module 9: Findings and Documentation
Top ↑- 49
Thresholds and Standards in Your Setting
Identify the decision and governing standard; distinguish investigative suspicion from a formal finding; avoid importing a standard from another setting.
- 50
Make Findings About Claims
Address each material assertion separately; explain partial support and partial contradiction; avoid reducing a complex account to a global label.
- 51
Separate Inaccuracy From Intentional Deception
Establish what is inaccurate; consider mistake, misunderstanding, and other explanations; identify what supports any conclusion about intent.
- 52
Express Uncertainty Without Avoiding the Decision
Supported, contradicted, and unresolved propositions; match the wording to the strength of the evidence; avoid unsupported percentages or credibility scores.
- 53
Write a Reasoned Credibility Assessment
State the claim, evidence, and reasoning; address contrary information and alternative explanations; document limitations and the applicable decision standard.
- 54
Review the Assessment Before Submission
Trace conclusions to identifiable sources; check for stereotypes, circular reasoning, and omitted facts; use independent review to challenge the reasoning.
Module 10: Practical Assessment Workshops
Top ↑- 55
Workshop One: A Confident Account With a Material Error
Compare the account with verified evidence; separate accuracy, confidence, and intent; write a limited finding supported by the record.
- 56
Workshop Two: Changing Accounts After a Distressing Event
Reconstruct the sequence of statements and outside influences; explore material differences without assuming their cause; identify what can and cannot be resolved.
- 57
Workshop Three: A Corporate Complaint and Conflicting Accounts
Define the disputed conduct and relevant policy question; compare accounts with messages, records, and other evidence; apply the assigned standard without relying on status or demeanor.
- 58
Workshop Four: A Public Sector Investigation With an Interested Source
Examine source knowledge, incentives, and corroboration; separate independent evidence from repeated information; identify the limits of the resulting assessment.
- 59
Workshop Five: A Private Investigation With Incomplete Digital Evidence
Evaluate screenshots, attribution, and missing context; develop competing explanations and further checks; report what the evidence supports without overstating it.
- 60
Workshop Six: The Complete Credibility Assessment
Evaluate accounts, sources, corroboration, and alternatives; revise the assessment when additional evidence is introduced; produce a reasoned determination with clear limitations.
Planned at $15 a month or $125 a year. Leave your email and you will hear when it opens.