Made for Human Resources Specialists
Work Through Conflicting Employee Accounts
90 min
Advanced
Human Resources Specialist
Make a Decision
Career outcome:
Avoid Professional Risk
Separate agreed facts from disputed claims, test the available support, identify missing evidence, and draft a conclusion tied to policy and the chosen proof standard.
Create a free account to save your progress and use this Playbook.
Use this when
Two or more employees give materially different accounts of the same workplace event, and you need to decide what the available evidence supports.
You'll need
- Allegation or decision question
- Policy or workplace standard
- Proof standard
- Account A
- Account B
- Other accounts
- Supporting evidence
- Case constraints
- Past practice
You'll get
- Every material claim classified as agreed, disputed, partly agreed, or unaddressed
- Direct knowledge separated from assumptions and secondhand reports
- Corroboration traced to independent sources
- Critical evidence gaps and follow-up questions ranked
- Each finding tied to the proof standard and cited evidence
- Policy, consistency, retaliation, and escalation risks checked
By the end of this playbook
You will have:
- Every material claim classified as agreed, disputed, partly agreed, or unaddressed
- Direct knowledge separated from assumptions and secondhand reports
- Corroboration traced to independent sources
- Critical evidence gaps and follow-up questions ranked
- Each finding tied to the proof standard and cited evidence
- Policy, consistency, retaliation, and escalation risks checked
Sample
This is sample data, not your prompt. Pro unlocks this higher-stakes Playbook. On Free Playbooks you can still copy the assembled prompt into any AI.
Sample input
Allegation: Casey reported that Jordan yelled, pointed, and used demeaning language during a March 12 deadline discussion. Proof standard: More likely than not. Account A: Casey reported two instances of raised volume, pointing, and the phrase "You keep making excuses." Account B: Jordan admitted frustration and a firm tone but denied yelling, pointing, or demeaning language. Other accounts: Morgan recalled an elevated voice but didn't see pointing. Lee heard only the end and didn't hear an insult. Evidence: Calendar records confirm attendance. Casey sent a same-day message reporting yelling but didn't mention pointing. Policy: Repeated yelling, insults, threats, or objectively intimidating conduct may violate the respectful workplace policy.
Sample assembled prompt
Decision question: Whether Jordan more likely... Agreed facts: A tense deadline discussion... Jordan spoke firmly and expressed frustration. Casey, Jordan, Morgan, and Lee attended... Proposed findings: 1. Elevated voice: Supported. Casey's same-day report and Morgan's independent... Jordan also acknowledged a firm, frustrated... 2. Pointing: Inconclusive. Casey reported pointing, Jordan denied it,... Morgan's lack of observation doesn't... 3. Demeaning language: Not supported on... No independent source recalled the quoted... This finding doesn't establish that... Policy check: Confirm whether a single... Follow-up priority: Ask Morgan where attention...