Back to Blog
Every professional who has ever had to write an incident report has experienced the same problem: you know what happened, but you do not know how to structure it so that it reads as credibly and completely as possible.
The 5-part statement framework solves that problem. It is the structure used by police officers in England and Wales for written statements and is equally applicable to security incident documentation. When your report follows this framework, investigators have everything they need. When it does not, they go looking for it — and that process rarely ends in your favour.
Why Structure Matters
An unstructured account, even an accurate one, is hard to follow. A reader trying to work out the sequence of events, your justification for your actions, and what happened afterwards has to do interpretive work. That creates space for doubt.
A structured account removes that space. It says: here is the context, here is what I observed, here is what I did, here is why, here is the outcome. An investigator reading that report can check each element against CCTV, witness statements, and the incident log without confusion.
The Five Parts, In Detail
Part 1 — Your position and initial circumstances
Where were you? What were you doing? What was your role? This opens the statement and places you in the scene. "At 22:47 I was positioned on the main entrance door of [venue name], conducting entry search duties with colleague [name]."
Part 2 — What drew your attention to the incident
The specific stimulus that caused you to become involved. This is important because it explains why you became involved in the first place. "I heard a loud verbal altercation from the direction of the bar area and observed two male subjects squaring up to each other."
Part 3 — What you directly observed
This is the evidential core of your statement. Write only what you personally saw, heard, or directly perceived. Not what colleagues told you. Not what you assumed or inferred. Do not write "he appeared intoxicated" unless you are able to articulate the specific signs you observed that led to that assessment. Write those signs instead.
Part 4 — Actions you took and your justification
Each significant action on its own, with the reasoning that preceded it. This is the section where most reports are weakest. "I requested the subject leave" is not enough. You need: what you said, how the subject responded, why that response led you to escalate, what you did next.
For use of force: each technique individually, with the specific reason you judged it necessary and proportionate at that moment. Do not bundle actions together.
Part 5 — Outcome
What was the end result? Subject removed without further incident. Police called (reference number). Ambulance attended. Injuries noted. CCTV footage preserved by whom. Report completed at [time].
Common Mistakes
- Writing "the subject was aggressive" without describing the specific behaviours you observed
- Combining parts 3 and 4 so that observation and action are indistinguishable
- Omitting the justification for actions (what you did is less important than why you did it)
- Writing retrospectively from memory hours or days later
- Using vague time references ("early evening") instead of precise times
How Original Note Supports This
Original Note's AI Quality Check reviews your submitted report against the 5-part framework and flags any gaps before the report is locked. The platform also prompts for each section during recording, reducing the likelihood of omissions in the first place.
Reports are server-timestamped and cryptographically sealed at submission — so contemporaneity is not just claimed, it is provable.
Try Original Note free for 7 days. No credit card required.