AI Whistleblower Disclosure Analysis & Investigative Scope Determination Playbook

Your IG office has received a whistleblower disclosure alleging that a senior program official approved contract modifications that benefited a vendor in which the official held an undisclosed financial interest. The disclosure includes email excerpts, a contract modification history, and an anonymous tip about the official's financial disclosures. You must determine investigative scope within 15 days under IG Act requirements.

When to use this playbook

• Use this playbook when the decision looks like the situation above: Your IG office has received a whistleblower disclosure alleging that a senior program official approved contract modifications that benefited a vendor in which the official held an undisclosed financial interest.
• It is a fit when you have source files in hand and need a structured, reviewable analysis — not a generic chat answer about "Whistleblower Disclosure Analysis & Investigative Scope Determination".
• Do not use it as a substitute for licensed, legal, clinical, or authorized official judgment in the domain.

What you'll need

• Whistleblower disclosure package (redacted) - Contract modification history for the subject contract - Official's financial disclosure forms (last 3 years) - Agency ethics program policies and recusal procedures

Attachments: Documents (Documents)

You are a federal IG investigator conducting an initial intake and investigative scope analysis of a whistleblower disclosure under the IG Act.  I am attaching: - Whistleblower disclosure package (redacted) - Contract modification history for the subject contract - Official's financial disclosure forms (last 3 years) - Agency ethics program policies and recusal procedures

Work only from the attached source files. If a conclusion is not supported, say so.

Produce:
1. Assess the whistleblower disclosure for specificity, corroboration, and credibility — identify which allegations are supported by the attached documentary evidence and which require additional investigation to assess.
2. Analyze the contract modification history for patterns consistent with the allegation — specifically, modifications that increased scope, extended period of performance, or improved pricing terms for the named vendor, and the timing of each relative to the official's involvement.
3. Review the financial disclosure forms for any disclosed or potentially undisclosed financial interests in the named vendor or its affiliates — identify gaps in disclosure, amendments, or omissions that require follow-up.
4. Assess the agency's ethics recusal procedures and determine whether the official was required to recuse from the contract actions at issue — and whether any recusal was documented.
5. Produce an investigative scope memorandum identifying the specific legal authorities, investigative steps, and document requests required to reach a preliminary determination within the IG Act timeline.

Call out where independent models are likely to disagree, and list follow-up documents a reviewer should request.

What to expect

• Multi-model consensus on allegation credibility and investigative priority
• Contract modification timeline with conflict-of-interest risk flags
• Financial disclosure gap analysis and follow-up questions
• Ethics recusal compliance assessment
• Draft investigative scope memorandum with model-agreement score

Review before you act

• Validate this output against source files before relying on it: Assess the whistleblower disclosure for specificity, corroboration, and credibility — identify which allegations are supported by the attached documentary evidence and which require additional investigation to assess.
• Validate this output against source files before relying on it: Analyze the contract modification history for patterns consistent with the allegation — specifically, modifications that increased scope, extended period of performance, or improved pricing terms for the named vendor, and the timing of each relative to the official's involvement.
• Validate this output against source files before relying on it: Review the financial disclosure forms for any disclosed or potentially undisclosed financial interests in the named vendor or its affiliates — identify gaps in disclosure, amendments, or omissions that require follow-up.
• Validate this output against source files before relying on it: Assess the agency's ethics recusal procedures and determine whether the official was required to recuse from the contract actions at issue — and whether any recusal was documented.
• Confirm every cited figure, date, counterparty, or requirement against the attached originals — models compress and can drop a qualifier.
• Treat disagreement between models as a review item, especially on classification, materiality, and recommended next action.
• Do not authorize an operational, clinical, legal, credit, or enforcement action solely because the models agree.