Observed, Reported, or Unconfirmed? A Source-Labeling Worksheet for Claim Drafts

Give each sentence a source and a review status

“Observed, reported, or unconfirmed?” sounds like a useful three-way choice. For report drafting, however, it combines two different questions. Observed or reported describes how information entered the file. Unconfirmed describes an unresolved part of its review. A statement can be clearly attributed to its speaker while the event it describes remains unconfirmed.

Keeping these questions separate helps an adjuster avoid accidentally converting a person's account into an inspection finding. The worksheet below uses one field for source type and another for documentation review status. It is an original manual drafting aid, not a scoring system, an industry standard, or a claim about a StateClaimAI software feature.

The field-notes-to-report guide explains how to group collected material into report sections. This article handles the smaller task inside those sections: tracing individual propositions, especially when one sentence contains information from several sources.

Use labels that say where the information came from

Choose a source label that is specific enough for another person to follow. Do not let “observed” conceal who observed something or whether the drafter only read someone else's note.

• Inspection observation: Identify the observer and the exact inspection-note reference. Use first-person wording only when the named author actually made the observation.
• Reported statement: Identify the speaker's role, how the statement was recorded, and its location in the packet. Distinguish a verbatim quote from a summary.
• Photo description: Identify the photograph and the visible detail being described. Keep contextual information supplied by a person separately attributed.
• Document entry: Identify the document, version if available, and relevant page or section. A document containing a statement remains a source for that statement; its existence alone does not establish the underlying event.
• Source not located: Mark a sentence whose source cannot yet be found. Keep it out of the narrative pending review, with its wording preserved in the working review notes.

These labels describe routes back to material. They do not rank people, establish reliability, or turn a document into independent confirmation of everything it contains.

Keep review status narrow

Use a separate field for the work performed on that route. A status such as “reference checked” can mean that someone opened the named source and found the cited passage. It should not silently mean “everything stated here is true.” Write a specific note when more than reference checking has occurred.

Useful documentation statuses include “source not located,” “reference checked,” “wording comparison pending,” “attribution needs clarification,” and “different accounts remain.” Choose labels your team understands, and define them at the top of the worksheet. Avoid an unexplained green checkmark or a bare “verified,” which does not tell the next reviewer what was checked.

Copy this sentence-level worksheet

Create a header for the draft version, preparer, review owner, and the status definitions being used. Then repeat this record for each proposition that needs source tracking. A proposition is a single statement that could be checked separately; one polished sentence may contain several.

• Item ID and draft location: A stable working ID and the section or paragraph being edited.
• Proposition: The one point being expressed, without extra interpretation.
• Source type: Inspection observation, reported statement, photo description, document entry, or source not located.
• Source locator: Note ID and line, photo ID, or document name and page sufficient for the reviewer to find it.
• Originator and recorder: Who supplied the information and who recorded it, where known.
• Time context: The date the source describes and the date it was recorded, labeled separately; use “not stated” where needed.
• Source wording: A short exact excerpt if appropriate, clearly marked as a quote, or a labeled paraphrase.
• Draft wording: The proposed sentence with its attribution intact.
• Review status: The specific documentation check completed or still pending.
• Open item, owner, and disposition: The unresolved question, the person responsible for checking it, and whether the sentence remains in the narrative or only in review notes.

Record only information necessary for the drafting task. Working role labels such as “Site Contact A” can keep a training example readable without introducing personal details. Real working documents should follow the team's authorized handling process.

Worked example: split one mixed sentence into three records

Everything in this example is fictional, including dates, records, and role labels. Suppose the first draft says:

The storage-room wall mark appeared on Monday and was larger by the inspection.

The available packet contains inspection note N-04, a recorded statement S-02, and photograph P-06. The sentence combines a visible condition, a reported first-noticed date, and a comparison that has no located source.

Record L-01: the inspection description

• Item and location: L-01; “Room observations,” paragraph 2.
• Proposition and type: A brown mark was recorded on the wall; inspection observation.
• Locator and people: N-04, line 3; originator and recorder Inspector A.
• Time context: Inspection October 6, 2026; note recorded the same day.
• Source wording: Quote: “Brown mark below the upper shelf.”
• Draft wording: “Inspector A recorded a brown mark below the upper shelf during the October 6 inspection (N-04).”
• Status: Reference checked against the note by Reviewer B.
• Open item, owner, disposition: None for attribution; Reviewer B; retain for full draft review.

The wording reports what the inspector recorded. It does not make the editor sound like an eyewitness. If the inspector is the report's author, that author can review whether different attribution fits the final format.

Record L-02: the reported date

• Item and location: L-02; “Reported history,” paragraph 1.
• Proposition and type: The contact first noticed the mark on October 5; reported statement.
• Locator and people: S-02, paragraph 1; originator Site Contact A; recorder Inspector A.
• Time context: First-noticed date reported as October 5; statement recorded October 6.
• Source wording: Labeled paraphrase: contact said they first noticed the wall mark on October 5.
• Draft wording: “Site Contact A reported first noticing the mark on October 5 (S-02).”
• Status: Attribution and wording comparison checked by Reviewer B.
• Open item, owner, disposition: Underlying first-noticed date remains reported; Reviewer B; retain with attribution.

“First noticed” stays “first noticed.” It does not become the date the mark appeared. That distinction comes from reading the actual source wording rather than filling a gap with a more decisive verb.

Record L-03: the unsupported comparison

• Item and location: L-03; removed from “Room observations,” paragraph 2.
• Proposition and type: The mark became larger; source not located.
• Locator and people: No source located; originator and recorder unknown.
• Time context: Comparison dates not stated in a supporting source.
• Source wording: None located; the phrase appears only in the first draft.
• Draft wording: No narrative sentence retained.
• Status: Source not located.
• Open item, owner, disposition: Reviewer B to check the packet for an attributed comparison; retain the question in review notes.

Photo P-06 shows one view in the fictional packet. Merely attaching its ID to the comparison would not supply the missing earlier view or statement. A source reference must support the particular proposition being written.

Keep conflicting accounts visible

If another statement gives a different first-noticed date, create a separate record for that account. Keep both source locators and both attributed wordings. Add a shared open-item reference so the reviewer can find the disagreement. Do not average the dates, silently choose the newer document, or relabel a reported date as an inspection observation.

At handoff, review from sentence to source and then from open item back to sentence. Confirm that edits have not dropped a speaker, changed “noticed” to “occurred,” or carried a removed assumption into another section. Mark which draft version the review covers.

Place the worksheet beside the narrative

The property damage claim report template includes places for statements, source notes, and open review items. Use those sections to keep the finished narrative readable while the working worksheet preserves the detailed attribution trail.

The scope remains documentation support, consistent with StateClaimAI's editorial policy. Source labels do not make insurance decisions, and a qualified professional must review the whole draft before use.

Once the material is organized, continue in the StateClaimAI workspace. Keep the worksheet available and compare the actual draft against it during review.