Columbo

The administrator dashboard brings the organisation’s investigations into one workspace. User management supplies the people who can be selected as stakeholders for an investigation.

The investigator records the assessment name, description and structured incident details. Supporting documents can inform those details before the investigation scope is approved. The application keeps this contextual information distinct from evidence used to support findings.

The selected investigation framework supplies the taxonomy used to organise scope and later analysis. The framework gives the system a consistent structure for the type of inquiry being conducted.

Stakeholder selection creates the interview assignments. Interview depth sets the amount of investigation the engine should pursue; it remains editable until an interview starts. Once started, an interview retains the scope and depth that governed it.

The system derives an investigation scope from the incident details and framework. A human approves the exact scope revision before interviews or substantive analysis begin. Once investigation work starts, the implemented workflow locks the governing context to avoid silently changing ongoing work.

The introduction establishes the stakeholder’s role and knowledge of the incident. During the conversation, the engine interprets responses, tracks evidence and unresolved questions, and selects the next line of inquiry. Application logic controls scope and progression while the language model drafts questions within those constraints.

A completed interview becomes a versioned analysis for investigator review. Findings remain linked to the stakeholder’s evidence, with scope coverage and follow-up recorded alongside them. This analysis describes one source’s contribution; it is not yet the final cross-source incident conclusion.

Documents may be uploaded before an interview, in response to a question, or to satisfy follow-up requests. The document workflow preserves why an artefact was supplied and analyses what it establishes. Investigators inspect, edit and approve the analysis before it becomes reviewed evidence for synthesis.

Individual analysis identifies unanswered questions and proportionate follow-up. Documentary requests require human approval before they become active work. Further evidence adds to the investigation without rewriting what a previous interview originally established.

The incident-analysis workspace checks that its upstream sources are approved and ready. Generation uses an exact source set, with versions and provenance retained. A later source change can make the result stale, so regeneration and review remain explicit actions.

The completed workspace brings the incident overview and taxonomy-grouped findings together. Each finding retains contributions back to the approved interview or document evidence. Shared-origin checks prevent repeated excerpts from being treated as independent corroboration.

Relationship and fishbone views make the structure of the analysis easier to inspect. Scope gaps and proposed actions remain visible alongside the findings. Human editing and approval create reviewable versions rather than silently overwriting the generated result.