Scope is the first decision and the one most often revisited. It should be written down, approved by whoever commissioned the work, and formally amended when it changes.
Start from the allegation and define the questions the investigation must answer, expressed as questions rather than conclusions.
Boundaries to set explicitly. Time period. Business units and geographies. Individuals whose conduct is examined. Whether the inquiry extends to whether similar conduct occurred elsewhere. Whether it addresses who knew and when, as distinct from what happened.
The escalation trigger. Define in advance what findings would require expanding scope or reporting upward — evidence implicating senior management, an audit committee matter, potential criminal conduct, or a disclosure obligation.
Independence. Where senior management may be implicated, the investigation should be commissioned by the board or a committee, with counsel that does not routinely advise the implicated executives. Getting this wrong destroys the investigation’s credibility with regulators and with courts.
Resourcing and timetable. A stated deadline is not a formality; open-ended investigations lose momentum, and the passage of time is itself criticised.
What the scope memorandum protects. A defined, documented scope allows the organisation to say later what it examined and what it did not, which is more defensible than an implied claim to have looked at everything.