Which statement about evidence in root-cause analysis is most accurate?

Which statement about evidence in root-cause analysis is most accurate?

• A. Multiple sources of evidence, including interviews, physical evidence, and data logs
• B. A single eyewitness account is the most reliable
• C. Physical evidence alone is sufficient
• D. Interpreting data logs without interviews is enough

Answer: (D)

In root-cause analysis, using evidence from multiple sources provides a fuller, more reliable picture. Each type of evidence offers different information: interviews reveal human actions, decisions, and the sequence of events; physical evidence shows tangible items or conditions present; data logs provide objective records of system activity and timing. Relying on a single source—like a single eyewitness—can be biased or incomplete due to memory limits. Physical evidence alone may lack context about how and why events occurred. Interpreting data logs without input from interviews may miss human factors or environmental factors that shaped what happened. By combining interviews, physical evidence, and data logs, you cross-check findings and build a more credible explanation of the root cause.

In root-cause analysis, using evidence from multiple sources provides a fuller, more reliable picture. Each type of evidence offers different information: interviews reveal human actions, decisions, and the sequence of events; physical evidence shows tangible items or conditions present; data logs provide objective records of system activity and timing. Relying on a single source—like a single eyewitness—can be biased or incomplete due to memory limits. Physical evidence alone may lack context about how and why events occurred. Interpreting data logs without input from interviews may miss human factors or environmental factors that shaped what happened. By combining interviews, physical evidence, and data logs, you cross-check findings and build a more credible explanation of the root cause.