3. Conducting the Investigation.
a. Is the chronology being maintained in sufficient detail to identify causes for unusual delays?
b. Is the information collected (witness statements, MFR’S of phone conversations, photographs, etc.) being retained and organized?
c. Is routine coordination with the legal advisor being accomplished?
4. Preparing Findings and Recommendations.
a. Is the evidence assembled in a logical and coherent fashion?
b. Does the evidence support the findings (including findings of no fault, no loss, or no wrongdoing)? Does each finding cite the exhibits that support it?
c. Are the recommendations supported by the findings? Does each recommendation cite the findings that support it?
d. Are the findings and recommendations responsive to the tasking in the appointment memorandum?
e. Did the investigation address all the issues (including systemic breakdowns; failures in supervision, oversight, or leadership; program weaknesses; accountability for errors; and other relevant areas of inquiry) raised directly or indirectly by the appointment?
5. Final Action. Was an appropriate legal review conducted?
