For Fraud Examiner / Financial Investigators ·
What you'll accomplish
Every report starts the same way: a blank template, a stack of notes, and the job of turning one into the other without adding a word the notes cannot support. You will build a Claude Project that already holds your unit's template, a neutral-wording style guide and a few of your own past sections. Each new section then starts from a draft that follows the template, marks every statement of fact with an [evidence ref] placeholder, attributes statements to the people who made them, and lists what it could not support. The draft is a starting point in your working notes. Every line still gets checked against your notes and the evidence, and your supervisor and counsel review the report.
What you'll need
Before you upload anything. A project's files persist, and they stay available to every chat inside it. Whether real case notes may go into Claude at all depends on your employer's AI policy and on an approved Claude plan. Read the plan's settings on chat retention and on whether conversations are used to improve models, because a consumer plan may differ from a business one. This workflow works fine without real data. Use coded notes (Subject A, Witness B, Vendor V-12), redacted past sections, your own blank templates, or the invented Case 2026-014 sample below.
Do this before you open Claude. One page is enough. The project can only follow rules you have written down.
What you should see: a short file you could hand to a new colleague. Troubleshooting: If your unit already has a style guide, trim it to one page of the rules that matter for report sections. Long documents dilute the instructions.
What you should see: three to five small files, none containing a real name or number. Troubleshooting: If a past section cannot be cleaned without losing its shape, leave it out. The template and the style guide do most of the work.
Anthropic's help page describes projects as self-contained workspaces with their own chat histories and knowledge bases. You can upload documents and provide context, then have focused chats inside the project.
What you should see: the project page listing your uploaded files and an area for instructions. Troubleshooting: The interface changes, and Anthropic is rolling out a newer version of projects in stages. If your sidebar or buttons differ, look for the same ideas: a project, its knowledge or files, and its instructions.
Look for the project's instructions field (sometimes labelled custom instructions). Paste the text below and edit it to match your unit's terms.
You help a fraud examiner draft sections of an investigation report from coded notes.
Rules:
1. Use only the notes the examiner provides in the chat. Add no facts, dates, amounts, names or explanations.
2. Put an [evidence ref] placeholder after every statement of fact. Never invent an exhibit number.
3. Attribute every statement to its source: "Witness B stated", "the approval log lists", "the invoice shows".
4. Follow the project template for headings and order, and the style guide for wording.
5. Never state or imply intent, guilt, deception, motive or credibility. Never write a conclusion, a recommendation about the case, or a legal opinion.
6. Keep codes exactly as given (Subject A, Vendor V-12, Case 2026-014).
7. At the end, add a section titled "Facts not supported by the notes" listing any template field the notes do not cover and any note that was unclear. If there are none, write "None found."
8. The output is a draft for the examiner's review. Do not describe it as final.
What you should see: the instructions saved on the project page. Troubleshooting: If a later draft breaks a rule, open the instructions and make that rule more specific rather than adding more rules.
Open a new chat inside the project and paste the invented notes below. They are made up for this guide. Nothing in them is a real case.
Using the project template and style guide, draft the Background section from these coded notes.
Case 2026-014 (invented). Company X. Vendor V-12.
N-1: Accounts payable listing shows two payments to Vendor V-12 that reference invoice INV-101.
N-2: First payment posted on [date A] for [amount]. Second payment posted on [date B] for the same [amount].
N-3: Witness B (accounts payable clerk) stated that vendor payments are released by Approver D.
N-4: The payment system showed a duplicate-invoice message on the second payment, per Witness B.
What you should see: a Background section that follows your template headings, with an [evidence ref] after each statement of fact and attributions such as "Witness B stated". At the end, a short list of anything it could not support, such as who approved the second payment (the notes do not say) or what [date A] and [date B] are. Troubleshooting: If the draft contains a sentence that is not in the notes, such as a reason the second payment happened, point to it in the chat and say "Remove this sentence. It is not in the notes." Then check whether rule 1 in the instructions needs to be stronger.
What you should see: a draft where every sentence traces to a note or an exhibit. Troubleshooting: If you find more than a sentence or two of unsupported text, stop and tighten the instructions before using the project again.
Follow-up section from the same notes:
Draft the "Records Reviewed" section from the same notes. List each record by its code and what it is. Add no records that are not in the notes.
Wording check on a draft you wrote:
Here is my coded draft of the Findings of Fact section. Using the style guide, list every sentence that uses wording the guide discourages, and every statement of fact with no [evidence ref]. Do not rewrite anything.
Gaps list before you start:
Compare these coded notes with the template headings. For each heading, say whether the notes contain material for it. Do not draft any text.
Tightening one paragraph:
Shorten this paragraph by removing repeated information only. Keep every fact, every attribution and every [evidence ref] exactly as written. Show what you removed.