The witness’s own words 场景学习单

A practice answer uses three legal phrases that do not appear anywhere in the witness’s first interview.

一份练习答案使用了三个法律短语，而证人第一次访谈中从未出现这些词。

COUNSEL

That answer is clearer. Use the same words tomorrow so the sequence cannot be misunderstood.

这个回答更清楚。明天使用同样的词，避免事件顺序被误解。

INVESTIGATOR

The sequence is clearer, but whose words are “immediate threat” and “no safe alternative”?

顺序更清楚了，但“迫在眉睫的威胁”和“没有安全替代”是谁的词？

ETHICS COUNSEL

Preparation should improve recall, not replace it.

准备工作应当改善回忆，而不是替换回忆。

ETHICS COUNSEL

Start again without the outline. Tell us what you noticed first, and separate what you saw from what someone later told you.

不看提纲重新开始。先说你最先注意到什么，并把亲眼所见与后来听说的内容分开。

WITNESS

I saw the door move and heard a shout. I assumed who entered, but I did not see the person’s face.

我看见门动了，也听到一声喊叫。我推测了进来的人是谁，但没有看见那个人的脸。

INVESTIGATOR

Mark saw, heard, assumed, and later learned as separate sources in the timeline.

在时间线上把看见、听见、推测和后来得知标为不同来源。

COUNSEL

We may explain the process and review prior statements; we may not supply facts or reward a preferred version.

我们可以解释程序并复核先前陈述；不能提供事实，也不能奖励某个偏好的版本。

The group returns to the opening concern—“That answer is clearer. Use the same words tomorrow so the sequence cannot be misunderstood.”—and compares it with the later response before closing the scene.

众人重新审视开场问题——“这个回答更清楚。明天使用同样的词，避免事件顺序被误解。”——并在结束场景前把它与后续回应进行比较。

COUNSEL

What does this audience need to know, what must they do, what remains uncertain, and when will the next update arrive?

这组受众需要知道什么、必须做什么、哪些仍不确定，以及下一次更新何时到来？

INVESTIGATOR

The message will identify the fact, source, limit, requested action, responsible contact, and correction route in that order.

信息会依次说明事实、来源、边界、要求的行动、负责联系人和纠错渠道。

Two phrases remain visible on the shared note: “whose words are” and “improve recall,” each linked to the exact line that gives it force in the discussion.

共用记录上保留两个表达：“whose words are”（这些是谁的用词）与“improve recall”（改善回忆），并分别连接到赋予其讨论力量的原句。

ETHICS COUNSEL

Before release, another reader will check whether the headline, detail, and tone make a stronger claim than the evidence supports.

发布前，由另一名读者检查标题、细节和语气是否作出了超出证据支持的更强主张。

The extended exchange gives the audience context, action, uncertainty, timing, and a visible way to receive corrections.

延伸后的交流为受众补足语境、行动、不确定性、时点和清晰可见的更正接收方式。

A second pass through “The witness’s own words” slows the exchange where “That answer is clearer. Use the same words tomorrow so the sequence cannot be misunderstood.” still leaves motive, consequence, or responsibility unstated.

第二轮细读“The witness’s own words”时，交流在“这个回答更清楚。明天使用同样的词，避免事件顺序被误解。”仍未说明动机、后果或责任的位置慢下来。

INVESTIGATOR

What could this audience misunderstand, which detail would change their action, and how will they know whether the message is still current?

受众可能误解什么，哪项细节会改变他们的行动，又怎样知道这条信息是否仍然有效？

COUNSEL

The revised message will lead with the verified fact, then consequence, required action, uncertainty, timing, contact, and correction history.

修订后的信息会先给出已核验事实，再依次说明后果、所需行动、不确定性、时间、联系人和更正记录。

The speakers test how “whose words are” changes the force of “separate what you saw,” then restate the distinction without relying on either phrase.

说话者检验“whose words are”（这些是谁的用词）如何改变“separate what you saw”（把你亲眼所见分开）的语气力度，然后不依赖这两个短语重新说明区别。

ETHICS COUNSEL

Clarity is not simplification if the omitted qualification would cause a reasonable reader to act differently.

如果被省略的限定会让理性读者采取不同的行动，那么这种简化就不等于清晰。

INVESTIGATOR

We will shorten the headline, preserve the important limit, test it with a new reader, and publish the next update time beside it.

我们会缩短标题、保留重要限制、让新读者试读，并在旁边公布下一次更新时间。

They rehearse one careful version, one direct version, and one version for a listener who enters late, checking that “improve recall” still leads to the same next step.

他们分别排练谨慎版、直接版和面向迟到听众的版本，检查“improve recall”（改善回忆）是否仍然导向同一个下一步。

Before the scene closes, “whose words are” and “separate what you saw” are placed beside the unresolved pressure in “The witness’s own words,” giving the speakers one more round to challenge, concede, reframe, and hand off the decision.

场景结束前，“whose words are”（这些是谁的用词）与“separate what you saw”（把你亲眼所见分开）被放回“The witness’s own words”尚未解决的压力旁，让说话者再完成一轮质疑、让步、重述与交接。

COUNSEL

If a skeptical listener hears only one sentence, which claim could they misunderstand, what evidence must travel with it, and which uncertainty cannot be edited away?

如果持怀疑态度的听众只听到一句话，他们可能误解哪项主张，什么证据必须随之出现，又有哪些不确定性不能被删去？

INVESTIGATOR

I can make the message shorter without pretending the situation is simpler, and I can name the limit of what we know before asking for trust.

我可以缩短信息而不假装情况更简单，也可以在请求信任前说明我们所知内容的边界。

ETHICS COUNSEL

Then the update will separate fact, interpretation, impact, decision, and next check, giving late listeners enough context to question the message responsibly.

那么更新会区分事实、解释、影响、决定和下一次检查，为后来加入的听众提供足够背景来负责任地质疑信息。

COUNSEL

I will pass on the audience, purpose, approved wording, supporting source, unresolved question, correction channel, and time when the message must be updated.

我会交接受众、目的、获准措辞、支持来源、未决问题、纠正渠道和必须更新信息的时间。

The longer dialogue now leaves “The witness’s own words” with an acknowledged objection, a revised frame, a named owner, and a handoff that can be checked after the conversation ends.

更长的对话让“The witness’s own words”在结束时留下已被承认的异议、经过修订的框架、具名负责人，以及能在谈话结束后继续核验的交接。

The longer exchange demonstrates communication that remains concise while making uncertainty, responsibility, and correction visible.

更长的交流展示了如何在保持简洁的同时，让不确定性、责任和纠正方式清晰可见。

The scripted answer is removed, and the timeline keeps four source labels plus a visible gap where the face was never seen.

脚本化答案被移除，时间线保留四种来源标签，并在从未看见面孔的位置留下清晰空白。