About
I’m an Evidentiary Investigator.
I work on questions where the answer looks obvious until you start asking what, exactly, the evidence proves.
My work lives in the space between records and conclusions: tracing claims back to their sources, separating evidence from inference, finding assumptions that have quietly become facts, and identifying the gaps that disappear once a narrative becomes familiar enough that nobody thinks to question it.
I’m particularly interested in messy problems. Conflicting records. Incomplete evidence. Systems that produce an answer without making it clear how they got there. Claims that have been repeated so many times their provenance has disappeared. Situations where everyone seems to agree on what happened, but nobody has stopped to ask whether the record actually establishes it.
That’s usually where I start digging.
How I got here
I didn't set out to become an evidentiary investigator.
My academic background is in anthropology, with a focus on forensics, but most of what shaped the way I work happened later, inside complex quality systems where records, processes, decisions, and evidence all had to agree.
I started without deep expertise in that world. I learned it by doing the work, then by asking enough questions to understand the systems underneath it. Over time, I became a subject-matter expert across multiple areas of quality operations, including quality systems, stability, SAP quality management, investigations, and the less tidy work of figuring out why a process that looked perfectly reasonable on paper wasn't producing reasonable results in practice.
Eventually, I was helping other teams and sites solve those problems too.
What I became particularly good at wasn't memorizing procedures. It was seeing the structure underneath them. I could follow a problem across systems, records, roles, handoffs, and assumptions until I found the place where what was supposed to be happening and what was actually happening had parted company.
That turned out to be the thread running through nearly everything I was good at.
Today, the subject matter may be different, but the work is remarkably familiar: understand the system, trace the evidence, challenge the assumptions, find the gap, and don't force an answer the record can't support.
How I work
I don't only investigate claims. I investigate systems, decisions, processes, and outcomes that don't quite make sense.
Sometimes the question is evidentiary: Does the record actually support the conclusion being drawn from it?
Sometimes it's structural: If this process is designed to produce X, why does it keep producing Y?
And sometimes the interesting question is whether the system is actually failing at all. An outcome that looks irrational under the stated goal may make perfect sense once you identify the incentives, assumptions, proxies, constraints, or competing objectives operating underneath it.
That's the kind of problem I tend to pull apart.
I look at what a system says it is doing, what it is actually doing, what it measures, what it rewards, what information moves through it, where decisions are made, and what has to be assumed for the resulting output to make sense.
That might mean tracing a claim back through its sources. It might mean discovering that a metric has quietly become a substitute for the thing it was supposed to measure. It might mean finding a broken handoff, an assumption embedded in a process, or a perfectly functioning mechanism producing an outcome nobody intended.
I don't assume the problem is where someone says it is. And I don't assume something is broken simply because the result is strange.
I follow the structure until the result makes sense.
Then we can decide what, if anything, actually needs fixing.
I like problems that resist the obvious answer.
The weird ones. The messy ones. The ones where the numbers say one thing and the outcome says another, where everybody knows how the process works but nobody can explain why it keeps doing that, or where a conclusion feels settled until someone asks one inconvenient question.
If you have one of those, I'd like to hear about it.
DOC · ABT-001