What “Unsubstantiated” Really Means in Workplace Investigations
At the end of an investigation, there’s often a moment of pause.
I’ve walked the stakeholder through the findings, explained the standard of proof, and outlined how we reached the conclusion. I’ve shared that the allegation was unsubstantiated. And then, the inevitable question follows:
“So... are you saying nothing happened?”
It’s a fair question, and one I’ve been asked more times than I can count.
Because let’s be honest: the word “unsubstantiated” doesn’t land well for most people. It can sound like the concern wasn’t valid, or worse, that the person who came forward wasn’t believed.
But that’s not what it means.
What “Unsubstantiated” Actually Means
In workplace investigations, a finding of “unsubstantiated” means there wasn’t enough evidence to meet the applicable standard of proof, typically a “preponderance of the evidence,” or more likely than not. It does not mean the event didn’t happen, or that the person who reported it was mistaken or dishonest. It simply means that the evidence didn’t rise to the level required to support a finding.
There are many reasons this might happen. Perhaps the key interaction occurred privately, with no witnesses. Maybe relevant documentation no longer exists or was never created. Or, as often happens, two people have very different recollections of the same event, and no additional evidence to tip the scale either way.
In those moments, we have to do something that’s both simple and incredibly difficult, acknowledge the limits of the evidence and hold the line on the standard of proof.
Why “Unsubstantiated” Doesn’t Mean the Issue Is Over
When we reach an unsubstantiated finding, it’s important to communicate that the matter wasn’t dismissed or ignored. The investigation occurred. The concern was taken seriously. Interviews were conducted. Evidence was reviewed. A methodical, fair process was followed.
An unsubstantiated finding means the process worked as it should, fairly, consistently, and with integrity, even if the conclusion feels unsatisfying.
And yet, these cases often leave everyone feeling uneasy.
The complainant may feel invalidated. The respondent may feel their reputation is still under a cloud. Leadership may feel unsure about what to do next. And the investigator is left to help everyone navigate a conclusion that feels ambiguous.
That’s why it’s important to reinforce this message: unsubstantiated does not mean irrelevant.
Even if there’s no formal finding of a policy violation, that doesn’t mean the concerns raised don’t matter, or that the workplace dynamics don’t deserve further attention.
How to Handle “Unsubstantiated” Findings
The way you communicate an unsubstantiated outcome can shape how the parties, and the broader organization, perceive the investigation process. Here are some ways to approach it thoughtfully:
1. Explain the standard of proof.
Most people don’t walk into an investigation understanding what “preponderance of the evidence” means. Explain that this is not about proving something beyond reasonable doubt, it’s about weighing the available evidence and determining whether it’s more likely than not that the conduct occurred. Then explain how the evidence fell short of that threshold in this case.
2. Acknowledge the limits of the evidence.
Be transparent that the lack of substantiation often stems from the absence of corroborating evidence or conflicting accounts, not because the concern wasn’t real. “The fact that we could not substantiate the allegation doesn’t mean the concern wasn’t valid. It simply means we didn’t have enough to support a formal finding.”
3. Reinforce that participation was valuable.
Let the complainant and any witnesses know that their willingness to come forward was important. Participation matters, regardless of the outcome, and the process was made stronger by their involvement.
4. Separate the investigation from follow-up.
Even when an investigation doesn’t result in formal corrective action, there may still be steps the organization can take to support team culture, communication, or trust. An unsubstantiated finding shouldn’t shut down all action, especially if there are themes worth exploring.
5. Stay alert to patterns.
Sometimes, an unsubstantiated concern today becomes part of a pattern tomorrow. Keep a record of concerns that couldn’t be substantiated, and consider revisiting them if similar issues arise in the future. Pattern recognition is a powerful tool in identifying workplace risks.
A Case That Stuck with Me
I once investigated a complaint of exclusion and disrespect from a team lead. The complainant said they’d been consistently talked over in meetings, left out of key decisions, and made to feel unwelcome. The team lead denied it. Witnesses gave mixed input. And there was no documentation that helped clarify what had happened.
The finding was unsubstantiated.
But the interviews revealed something else, a culture of poor communication and vague reporting lines. No one knew exactly who was responsible for what, and tension had been simmering across the team for months.
Even though the specific allegation couldn’t be substantiated, I recommended a team reset. Clearer roles, better communication expectations, and a facilitated discussion with leadership.
Six months later, the team was operating more effectively. The complainant stayed. The team lead adjusted. And the organization avoided what could have become a much larger issue.
Conclusion
Unsubstantiated doesn’t mean “nothing happened.” It means we couldn’t conclude that something happened, based on the evidence available.
And as investigators, our job is to make that distinction clear, to the complainant, to the respondent, to leadership, and to ourselves.
We want to communicate that, even when the outcome is complex or inconclusive, everyone was heard, the process was followed, and the organization is paying attention.
It’s not always a neat ending. But it’s an honest one.
If you liked this article, do me a favor and share it with a colleague or repost it to your network.
Together we’re building a community of investigators committed to elevating workplace culture.
Want to Bring More Clarity and Confidence to Your Investigations?
Whether you're defining scope, managing communication, or writing defensible findings, how you navigate the early steps of an investigation shapes everything that follows.
The Investigative Edge was built to help you get it right.
This self-paced online course walks you through the full investigation process, from intake to resolution, so you can lead with structure, neutrality, and credibility.
Inside, you’ll get:
A proven framework for consistent, fair, and legally sound investigations
Tools to help you assess evidence, reduce bias, and communicate findings clearly
Plug-and-play templates, checklists, and guides you can start using immediately
Whether you're leading your first case or your fiftieth, The Investigative Edge gives you the structure and support to lead every investigation with clarity and confidence.
