Audit evidence index: distinguish files from independent support

Open the fictional six-file pack

The learner receives a policy PDF, an emailed copy of that PDF, a screenshot of its first page, a signed training record, a photograph of the training board and an interview note. The folder contains six files, but three are versions or copies of one policy source.

The draft summary says, “Six independent sources confirm implementation.” That treats different file formats as different underlying evidence and assumes every file supports the same claim. The index needs to show both origin and purpose before that statement can be evaluated.

Give the underlying source its own identifier

In this classroom system, P-01 identifies the policy source, R-01 the training record, O-01 the board observation and I-01 the interview account. The email attachment and screenshot link back to P-01. Their file identifiers remain separate so the reviewer can locate them.

This separation does not mean copies are useless. A screenshot may show what was displayed at a particular time, if its context is established. But merely exporting a PDF as an image does not create an independent observation of implementation.

Build the origin-and-claim index

The “possible support” column still requires reading the actual contents. A filename alone does not prove what a document contains.

Look for dependence between apparently different items

Suppose the interview note simply repeats text read aloud from the policy during the interview. That account may be less informative about independent understanding than an explanation of the person's own experience. Likewise, a summary report that cites only P-01 is not an additional independent source for the policy's implementation.

The point is not to assign automatic weights to evidence types. It is to recognize where several items rely on the same underlying information. Their agreement may reflect copying rather than separate confirmation.

Use the index to ask a focused next question

If the claim concerns whether a process is documented, P-01 may be directly relevant. If it concerns whether a named activity occurred, R-01 may be more relevant. If it concerns current conditions, the date and scope of O-01 matter. No single count answers all three questions.

For practice, remove two duplicate policy files from the fictional pack. Explain why file count falls while the underlying evidence may remain unchanged. Then identify one genuinely new item that could address a specific unresolved claim, rather than requesting more attachments without a purpose.