Which statement best describes how to handle inconsistent statements in an unfounded assessment?

• A. Treat inconsistencies as indicators of deception and end the case.
• B. Consider context, corroboration, and provide a compassionate explanation to the survivor.
• C. Immediately label the survivor as non-credible.
• D. Ignore inconsistencies and proceed as if proven.

Answer: (B)

This question tests how to handle inconsistent statements in an unfounded assessment through a trauma-informed, survivor-centered approach. In trauma experiences, memory can be fragmented or shift over time, and details like dates, places, or relationships may be recalled inconsistently. That doesn’t mean the person is lying. The best course is to assess inconsistencies in context, look for corroborating information, and respond with compassion. Explain back to the survivor what you heard, acknowledge that memory can be affected by trauma, and give them space to clarify without blame. Document the inconsistencies neutrally and continue the inquiry with a focus on safety, support, and gathering corroborating details as appropriate.

In contrast, treating inconsistencies as proof of deception or labeling the survivor as non-credible—and ignoring discrepancies—fails to respect the survivor’s experience and can bias the investigation. The appropriate approach centers on empathy, careful corroboration, and contextual assessment rather than premature conclusions.