Investigator Field Guides
A free, operational method for assessing whether an administrative record contains sufficient, traceable support for its conclusions, particularly where AI-assisted drafting has contributed to the record. Three editions, for employment (EEO), fair-housing, and international equality and human-rights investigations, each built around five review conditions and a Record Interrogation Framework a reviewer can apply at intake or before finalization.
Written by Phillip Wikes, former Lead Civil Rights Officer, Maryland Commission on Civil Rights, M.S. Negotiation and Conflict Management. The method behind these guides has been graded record by record by 57 international reviewers across three studies, including an expert panel of 36 independent experts across 16 countries, each completing a full 24-record set.
Free access · No credit card · Instant download
That one is yours. Two things that go with it.
If the file did not start, use this link. Nothing was asked of you for it and nothing was recorded about you.
Nothing further is required of you. If you want to give something back, the reviewer evaluation asks nine questions about how records are reviewed where you work. It takes about four minutes, it is anonymous, and it does not ask who you are.
Join the International Registry of Supporters to give visible institutional backing to decision transparency. Adding your support also grants immediate access to run a free, private JRS diagnostic check on your own records. Your record text is never stored: each record is assessed in memory and discarded. You sign as an individual practitioner, not on behalf of your employer.
When a decision changes a life, the person deserves to know why.
When a decision affects someone's rights, safety, livelihood, or ability to seek justice, they deserve a record that honestly explains how it was reached. Back the principle that consequential decisions stay explainable to the people they affect.
Pressure-test the standard (4-min evaluation) →Every decision is eventually questioned. Will the record still hold?
A strong record survives the complaint, the audit, the investigation, and the courtroom. A weak one becomes the exposure. Back the standard that documentation should still support a consequential decision long after the decision was made.
Pressure-test the standard (4-min evaluation) →As AI-assisted drafting enters investigative and administrative documentation, records can read as complete and professional while lacking traceable factual grounding. The basis for a conclusion may live in the author's memory rather than on the page, a distinction that becomes significant when the author is no longer available and the record must be examined on its own.
The Justification Review Standard (JRS) provides a structured way to identify those documentation-traceability gaps before a record is finalized. Each guide walks through the five conditions, the AI-documentation risk patterns, a Record Interrogation Framework, and a one-page reviewer quick reference.
These guides are supplemental investigative references. They do not constitute legal advice, establish legal sufficiency, or replace applicable investigative procedures. References to specific agencies or statutes describe the contexts in which the method may be applied and do not imply endorsement or affiliation. Applicable jurisdiction, national legislation, and organizational procedures govern.