APG5642 Chap.2 Story Viability, Records and Interviews
Story Viability, Records and Interviews
A promising proposition becomes viable when the reporter can identify an evidence path, a realistic timeline and a fair reporting process. This chapter combines three decisions: whether to proceed, how to obtain the record and whom to interview. Each decision should reduce uncertainty rather than merely add material.
For public records, begin with the information needed and the jurisdiction likely to hold it.
Search proactive publication channels and ask the agency before treating a formal access request as the first move. When a request is necessary, submit it early and describe records precisely enough that the holder can locate them. Record access is a reporting method, not a substitute for understanding the documents once obtained.
Interviews serve different evidentiary roles.
Affected people can show consequences, experts can explain systems, insiders may identify where records sit, and accountable parties must be given a fair opportunity to respond. Prepare from existing evidence, ask open questions before testing specifics, and evaluate the speaker's position, knowledge and incentives.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Feasibility as evidence access, time, scope and safety
- 02
Go, narrow, pause or stop decisions
- 03
Public records and likely record holders
- 04
Proactive publication before formal access requests
- 05
Precise descriptions of documents, dates and custodians
- 06
Interview roles: expertise, experience, inside knowledge and accountability
- 07
Open questions, follow-ups and documentary testing
- 08
Source incentives, corroboration and right of reply
Design a records and interview sequence
- 1Define the records sought: service targets, application dates, decision dates, status categories and published reasons for delay.
- 1Identify the likely holder and search its website, annual reports, dashboards and disclosure log before drafting a formal request.
- 1Build an interview map with applicants, program experts, current or former staff and the responsible agency.
- 1Interview affected applicants openly, then test recurring claims against the administrative record rather than treating repetition as proof.
- 1Ask the agency about the verified pattern and alternative explanations, allowing enough time for a meaningful response.
- 1Continue only if the record supports a material pattern and the investigation remains feasible within the reporting period.
Key terms
- Feasibility analysis
- A practical assessment of whether the evidence, access, time, skills and safety conditions can support a defensible story.
- Proactive disclosure
- Information that an agency publishes without requiring an individual formal access application.
- Record holder
- The agency, office or organisation responsible for creating, maintaining or controlling the records sought.
- Source role
- The distinct evidentiary function a person serves, such as expertise, lived experience, inside knowledge or accountability.
- Corroboration
- Independent evidence that confirms, qualifies or challenges a material claim made by another source.
- Right of reply
- A fair and timely opportunity for a criticised person or organisation to understand and answer the substance of a proposed claim.
Story Viability, Records and Interviews FAQ
When should a reporter abandon a story idea?
Pause, narrow or stop when essential evidence is inaccessible, the claim is immaterial, the timeline cannot support fair verification, or credible contrary evidence removes the proposed pattern. Ending a weak idea protects time and accuracy.
Should a formal information request be the first step?
Not automatically. Define the record, identify the correct jurisdiction and check proactive publication, dashboards, annual reports and disclosure logs. An informal inquiry may resolve access faster; formal processes remain important when the record is not available.
How should interviewees be selected?
Choose people for distinct reporting roles and direct relevance to the proposition. Combine affected experience, appropriate expertise, documentary knowledge and accountability, then examine each person's basis of knowledge and possible incentives.
What does fairness require before publication?
Fairness requires accurate representation, proper context and a meaningful opportunity for people facing significant criticism to respond to the substance. Their response should be checked and represented honestly, not treated as an automatic veto.
How can a right-of-reply request be prepared?
Write a memo that states the proposed criticism, its supporting evidence, questions requiring an answer and a fair deadline. Compare the response with the record and mark every new factual assertion for verification rather than inserting it untested into the draft.
Assessment move
Build a viability memo before investing heavily in any project. Put the proposed claim at the top, then list record holders, public access routes, interview roles, skills needed, likely delays, ethical or legal sensitivities and the point at which the project should be narrowed or stopped. Practise translating vague requests into record descriptions with subject, date range, document type and likely custodian.
For interviews, prepare a two-column sheet: what the existing evidence suggests and what the person could genuinely know. Rehearse open questions first, followed by specific documentary challenges and a clean invitation to add context. Review one access request as if you were the records officer: identify ambiguous terms, an excessive date range and records held by another office.
Then revise it without stripping out the information needed for the story. Build an interview ledger that records role, basis of knowledge, claims made, corroboration needed and follow-up date. After each interview, mark which answers changed the proposition and which merely repeated existing material. This makes source diversity and reporting progress visible.
