How screening polygraph results can be reported in a structured risk-management format — without overstating the polygraph outcome or treating the test result as a standalone verdict.
Screening polygraph examinations are frequently used to assist risk management rather than to prove a single historical fact. In safeguarding, post-conviction monitoring, therapeutic disclosure, workplace compliance and private instruction contexts, the central question is rarely “did this person lie?” but rather “what level of concern does this examination — taken together with all other available information — support?”
Risk-banded reporting offers a structured way of translating screening polygraph findings into a practical level of concern: High Risk, Medium Risk or Low Risk. When properly constructed, this format can help solicitors, therapists, employers, investigators, safeguarding professionals and private clients understand the practical significance of the result without relying on oversimplified pass/fail language.
This article explains the principle, defines the bands, identifies the inputs that should inform each risk formulation, and provides practical guidance for professionals who instruct, receive or act upon screening polygraph reports.
What Is Risk-Banded Reporting?
Risk-banded reporting is a method of presenting the findings of a screening polygraph examination in a structured format that communicates a practical level of concern. Rather than presenting only the raw physiological outcome — Significant Response, No Significant Response, Inconclusive or No Opinion — the examiner translates the totality of the examination findings into one of three risk categories.
The Three Risk Bands
Low Risk: The examination did not identify an immediate reason to increase concern in relation to the specific issues tested.
Medium Risk: The examination raised concern, ambiguity, inconsistency or uncertainty requiring clarification, review or follow-up.
High Risk: The examination identified significant concern, especially where a Significant Response is supported by disclosure, contradiction, breach, safeguarding relevance or corroborating information.
It is essential to understand what risk bands are not:
- They are not findings of fact. A risk band is a structured professional judgement, not a determination of what did or did not happen.
- They are not declarations of guilt or innocence. The polygraph examiner is not a judge, jury or tribunal of fact.
- They are intended to support proportionate decision-making. The band provides a framework for instructing professionals to calibrate their response — whether that involves further enquiry, reassurance, safeguarding action, therapeutic review or no further action.
- The band applies only to the issues and time period tested. It does not generalise to untested areas, past behaviour outside the scope of the examination, or future conduct.
Why the Polygraph Result and the Risk Band Must Be Separated
A common misunderstanding is that the polygraph result is the risk assessment. It is not. The physiological outcome of a polygraph examination is one input into the risk formulation — an important input, but not the only one, and not always the most important one.
The polygraph outcome describes the physiological data. The risk band describes a structured professional judgement about the practical significance of the entire examination — including the physiological result, any disclosures, collateral information, the seriousness of the issues tested, base-rate considerations, and the degree of agreement between the examiner’s chart analysis and available algorithmic analysis.
Polygraph Outcomes
A screening polygraph examination may produce one of four physiological outcomes:
- Significant Response (SR) — the physiological data indicate a meaningful response to one or more relevant questions.
- No Significant Response (NSR) — the physiological data do not indicate a meaningful response to the relevant questions.
- Inconclusive (INC) — the physiological data are insufficient or ambiguous and do not support a clear opinion.
- No Opinion (NO) — the examiner is unable to render an opinion on the data, often due to procedural or data-quality factors.
Risk Formulations
A risk formulation translates the polygraph outcome — together with all relevant contextual information — into a practical level of concern:
- Low Risk — no immediate reason to increase concern.
- Medium Risk — concern, ambiguity or uncertainty requiring further review.
- High Risk — significant concern supported by multiple indicators.
Separating these layers is essential. Three examples illustrate why:
Example 1: No Significant Response, but Serious Disclosure
A person produces No Significant Response to the relevant screening questions but makes a serious disclosure during the pre-test interview — for example, admitting to undisclosed contact with a person from whom they are subject to a restriction. The physiological result may be reassuring, but the disclosure may still require a higher risk band. The risk formulation must account for the disclosure separately from the chart data.
Example 2: Significant Response, but No Corroboration
A person produces Significant Response to a relevant question but makes no disclosure, and there is no supporting collateral information. This may raise concern, but it should not automatically be reported as High Risk. The examiner must consider whether the concern is sufficient, in context, to justify a higher band — or whether it is more appropriately reported as Medium Risk pending further enquiry.
Example 3: Inconclusive Result
An Inconclusive result does not mean the person was deceptive. It does not mean they were truthful. It means that the physiological data were insufficient or ambiguous and that the examiner cannot render a clear opinion. This may require review, re-examination or further information gathering — not an adverse conclusion.
Separating the physiological outcome from the risk formulation makes the report more useful to the instructing professional and more professionally defensible for the examiner. It avoids overstating the significance of a single data point and encourages the kind of structured, multi-source reasoning that characterises good risk-management practice.
The Six Key Inputs to a Risk-Banded Formulation
The risk band should not be a mechanical translation of the polygraph result. It should be a structured professional judgement informed by six key inputs.
1. Polygraph Outcome
The physiological result — Significant Response, No Significant Response, Inconclusive or No Opinion — is the starting point. It provides important structured information about the examinee’s physiological responses during the examination. However, it is one input among several. A Significant Response does not automatically mean High Risk. A No Significant Response does not automatically mean no risk. An Inconclusive or No Opinion result should not be treated as proof either way.
2. Disclosures
Disclosures may occur before, during or after testing. They should be reported separately from the physiological result and considered independently in the risk formulation. In some cases, disclosures may be more important than the chart outcome — particularly where they reveal breach, access, opportunity, deception, omission or safeguarding concern.
A person who produces No Significant Response but discloses a serious breach during the pre-test interview may still warrant a higher risk band. Conversely, a person who produces Significant Response but provides a full and apparently credible account may warrant a more cautious formulation pending further enquiry rather than an immediate High Risk classification.
3. Collateral Information
The risk formulation should be informed by available collateral information. This may include:
- Prior risk assessment reports or professional opinions.
- Witness accounts or third-party information.
- Digital evidence, communications data or device analysis.
- Safeguarding records or referral information.
- Treatment records, therapeutic progress notes or clinical assessments.
- Employer records, HR files or compliance documentation.
- Probation reports, licence conditions or supervision records.
- Previous admissions, documented breaches or known inconsistencies.
Collateral information may support, contradict or contextualise the polygraph outcome. Where collateral evidence contradicts a No Significant Response result, the risk band should reflect that contradiction. Where collateral evidence supports a Significant Response, it may increase confidence in a higher risk formulation.
4. Seriousness of the Issue Tested
Not all screening issues carry the same consequences. The risk formulation should be influenced by the practical significance of the issue being examined. A Significant Response to a question about a minor procedural matter may not carry the same weight as a Significant Response to a question involving safeguarding, public protection, legal compliance or workplace integrity.
Relevant considerations include:
- Whether the issue has safeguarding implications for children or vulnerable adults.
- Whether the issue involves legal or regulatory obligations.
- Whether the issue relates to therapeutic progress or recovery compliance.
- Whether the issue affects public protection, professional licensing or organisational trust.
- Whether the issue involves potential harm, escalation or re-offending.
The seriousness of the issue should inform the formulation, not replace professional analysis. A serious issue does not automatically produce a High Risk band — but it may lower the threshold at which concern becomes significant.
5. Base-Rate and Prior Probability Considerations
The same polygraph result may have different practical significance depending on the base rate or prior probability of the behaviour being screened. This is a fundamental principle of Bayesian reasoning and applies to all screening and diagnostic procedures, not only to polygraph.
In low base-rate screening contexts — where the target behaviour is genuinely uncommon — a Significant Response may have a higher false-positive rate. The positive predictive value of the result is reduced when the prior probability of the behaviour is low. This does not invalidate the result, but it should be considered when formulating the risk band.
Conversely, in high base-rate contexts — where there is already substantial reason to believe the behaviour may have occurred — a No Significant Response may provide less reassurance than it would in a lower-risk population. The aggregation of prior probabilities across multiple screening issues may further affect the interpretive context.
Examiners should consider the prior probability when deciding how much weight to place on the physiological result within the overall risk formulation.
6. Examiner–Algorithm Agreement
Where algorithmic analysis of the polygraph data is available, the examiner may consider whether the algorithmic output is directionally consistent with the examiner’s manual chart analysis. This is a confidence factor — it affects the degree of confidence in the physiological interpretation, not the automatic classification of the risk band.
Algorithmic analysis can be a useful adjunct to manual chart analysis. It may assist the examiner in considering confidence in the physiological interpretation. However, it should not replace the examiner’s professional judgement, and it should never be described as “confirming deception” or “confirming truthfulness”.
The preferred reporting language is:
“The algorithmic analysis was directionally consistent with the examiner’s interpretation.”
or:
“The algorithmic analysis was not consistent with the examiner’s manual interpretation, and this discrepancy has been considered in the overall risk formulation.”
Examiner–Algorithm Agreement: A Closer Look
The relationship between the examiner’s manual chart analysis and any available algorithmic analysis deserves separate attention, because it is frequently misunderstood.
Algorithmic scoring systems — such as those embedded in modern polygraph software — apply statistical models to the recorded physiological data. They can provide a useful numerical or categorical output that may assist the examiner in considering the strength and consistency of the physiological response patterns.
However, algorithmic outputs are not infallible, and they operate within the same data-quality constraints as manual analysis. They do not “confirm” deception or truthfulness. They provide a statistical estimate based on the recorded data, which must be interpreted in context.
The following table summarises how examiner–algorithm agreement may be considered in reporting:
| Examiner–Algorithm Relationship | Reporting Implication |
|---|---|
| Strong agreement | Increases confidence in the physiological interpretation. The examiner’s manual analysis and the algorithmic output point in the same direction, strengthening the basis for the chart-based opinion. |
| Partial agreement | Supports cautious interpretation and may justify follow-up. The algorithmic analysis is partially consistent but marginal scores or mixed signals suggest the physiological data are not unequivocal. |
| Clear disagreement | Reduces confidence in the chart-based opinion and may require quality assurance, review or re-examination. Where the examiner’s manual interpretation and the algorithmic output point in different directions, the examiner should proceed with particular caution. |
It is important to stress that algorithmic agreement affects confidence in the physiological interpretation. It does not determine the risk classification. A High Risk formulation may be justified by serious disclosure or collateral concern even where algorithmic agreement is limited. Equally, strong algorithmic agreement does not automatically produce a High Risk band in the absence of other supporting information.
Low Risk
Definition
A Low Risk formulation indicates that the screening examination, taken as a whole, did not identify an immediate reason to increase concern in relation to the specific issues and time period tested. The physiological data, disclosures, collateral information and contextual factors do not, collectively, suggest that the level of concern should be raised.
Typical Indicators
- No Significant Response to the relevant screening questions.
- No new risk-relevant disclosure before, during or after testing.
- No contradiction from available collateral information.
- The issue tested does not reveal current escalation or emerging concern.
- The overall result meaningfully lowers concern in context.
- Where algorithmic analysis is available, the examiner and algorithm are directionally consistent.
Example Report Wording
“The examination produced No Significant Response to the relevant screening questions. No new risk-relevant disclosures were made, and the available collateral information does not contradict the examination findings. On the basis of the physiological result, the absence of new disclosure, and the available contextual information, the overall formulation for this examination is Low Risk. This assessment applies only to the issues and time period examined.”
Recommended Action
A Low Risk formulation typically supports continued monitoring at the current level, reassurance to the instructing professional, or a decision that no immediate escalation is required. It does not guarantee that the behaviour did not occur. It indicates that the examination did not identify a reason to increase concern.
Cautionary Note
A Low Risk formulation is not a certificate of truthfulness. It does not mean the person has been “cleared”. It means that the available examination data — physiological, disclosure-related and contextual — do not support an increased level of concern at this time. If new information emerges, the risk formulation may need to be revisited.
Medium Risk
Definition
A Medium Risk formulation indicates that the screening examination raised concern, ambiguity, inconsistency or uncertainty that requires clarification, review or follow-up. The examination data do not clearly support either reassurance or significant concern, but they identify areas that should not be left unaddressed.
Typical Indicators
- Significant Response to a relevant question without corroboration from disclosure or collateral information.
- Inconclusive or mixed physiological data.
- Partial, ambiguous or minimising disclosure.
- Some discrepancy between the examination findings and available information, but insufficient to justify a High Risk formulation.
- Moderate issue seriousness.
- Partial examiner–algorithm agreement or marginal algorithmic scores.
- A clear need for clarification, further collateral enquiry, review or follow-up testing.
Example Report Wording
“The examination produced Significant Response to one relevant screening question. No disclosure was made that accounts for this response, and the available collateral information does not clearly resolve the concern. The algorithmic analysis was partially consistent with the examiner’s interpretation, but the scores were marginal. On the basis of the physiological result, the absence of corroborating disclosure, and the contextual factors, the overall formulation for this examination is Medium Risk. Further enquiry, collateral review or follow-up examination is recommended before a definitive assessment is made.”
Recommended Action
A Medium Risk formulation typically supports further enquiry rather than immediate adverse action. Appropriate responses may include collateral enquiry, a review meeting with the instructing professional, a structured follow-up interview, a quality review of the examination data, or a re-examination at an appropriate interval.
Cautionary Note
A Medium Risk formulation should not be treated as “probably deceptive” or “probably truthful”. It indicates genuine uncertainty that warrants further professional attention. Instructing professionals should resist the temptation to collapse Medium Risk into either of the other bands without additional information.
High Risk
Definition
A High Risk formulation indicates that the screening examination identified significant concern in relation to the issues tested. This is typically supported by more than one source of information — for example, a Significant Response combined with a risk-relevant disclosure, contradicting collateral information, or a known breach.
Typical Indicators
- Significant Response to a central relevant issue.
- Serious or risk-relevant disclosure — whether made before, during or after testing.
- Corroborating information, contradiction or documented breach.
- Safeguarding, legal, therapeutic, compliance or public protection significance.
- The overall result materially increases concern in context.
- Strong examiner–algorithm agreement may increase confidence in the physiological interpretation, but High Risk can still be justified by serious disclosure or collateral concern even where algorithmic agreement is limited.
Example Report Wording
“The examination produced Significant Response to the central relevant screening question. During the pre-test interview, the examinee disclosed [nature of disclosure]. This disclosure is consistent with the physiological findings and raises significant concern in view of the safeguarding context. The algorithmic analysis was directionally consistent with the examiner’s interpretation. On the basis of the physiological result, the disclosure, the collateral information, and the safeguarding significance of the issue tested, the overall formulation for this examination is High Risk. Immediate review by the instructing professional is recommended.”
Recommended Action
A High Risk formulation typically supports immediate review by the instructing professional, safeguarding escalation where applicable, therapeutic review, compliance action, or further investigation. The appropriate response depends on the professional context, the seriousness of the issue, and the nature of the supporting information.
Cautionary Note
A High Risk formulation is not a finding of guilt. It is not a conviction, a clinical diagnosis, or a determination of fact. It is a structured professional judgement that significant concern has been identified and that the instructing professional should act proportionately on the information provided. The examiner should clearly state the basis for the formulation in the written report so that the instructing professional can assess the reasoning and take appropriate action.
Practical Decision Matrix
The following matrix illustrates how polygraph outcome, disclosure and collateral context, and examiner–algorithm agreement may interact to inform the risk band. It is a guide to structured judgement and should not be used mechanically.
| Polygraph Outcome | Disclosure / Collateral Context | Examiner–Algorithm Agreement | Suggested Band |
|---|---|---|---|
| NSR | No risk-relevant disclosure; no contradiction | Strong agreement | Low |
| NSR | Minor disclosure or unresolved inconsistency | Strong or partial agreement | Low or Medium |
| NSR | Serious disclosure despite NSR | Any | Medium or High |
| SR | No disclosure; no collateral support | Strong agreement | Medium |
| SR | No disclosure; no collateral support | Weak or conflicting agreement | Medium with caution |
| SR | Partial disclosure or inconsistency | Strong or partial agreement | Medium |
| SR | Serious disclosure, breach or corroborating concern | Strong agreement | High |
| SR | Serious disclosure or breach | Weak algorithmic agreement | High may still be justified, primarily because of disclosure or collateral evidence |
| Inconclusive | No disclosure; no other concern | Mixed or weak agreement | Medium or repeat required |
| Inconclusive | Significant disclosure or safeguarding concern | Any | Medium or High |
| Refusal or non-co-operation | No other concern | Not applicable | Medium depending on context |
| Refusal or non-co-operation | Existing concern or safeguarding issue | Not applicable | High may be appropriate |
This matrix is a guide to structured judgement and should not be used mechanically. Every case must be considered on its own facts, context and professional requirements.
Recommended Actions by Risk Band
The following table summarises the types of action that each risk band may support. Recommended actions must always be proportionate, lawful, and aligned with the role and authority of the referring professional.
| Risk Band | Recommended Actions |
|---|---|
| Low Risk |
• Continue current arrangements. • No immediate escalation unless other information emerges. • Consider routine review only. |
| Medium Risk |
• Review the case. • Clarify inconsistencies. • Seek collateral information. • Consider focused follow-up questioning. • Consider re-examination if appropriate. |
| High Risk |
• Prompt risk review. • Safeguarding action where necessary. • Further investigation. • Possible escalation of restrictions, supervision or monitoring. • Consider urgent referral to relevant professionals or authorities depending on context. |
Suggested Structure for a Risk-Banded Screening Polygraph Report
A well-structured risk-banded report should allow the instructing professional to understand the examination process, the findings, and the basis for the risk formulation. The following structure is recommended:
1. Examination Type
“This was a screening polygraph examination concerning [issue] during the period [date] to [date].”
2. Scope of Relevant Questions
“The relevant questions addressed whether the examinee had engaged in [defined behaviour] during the specified period.”
3. Polygraph Outcome
“The examination produced Significant Response / No Significant Response / Inconclusive findings in relation to the relevant screening issue.”
4. Disclosures
“During the examination process, the examinee disclosed [summary]. This disclosure is considered risk-relevant because [reason].”
Or: “No risk-relevant disclosures were made during the examination process.”
5. Examiner–Algorithm Comparison
“The examiner’s manual chart analysis was compared with available algorithmic analysis. The two methods were directionally consistent in relation to the relevant issue, increasing confidence in the physiological interpretation.”
Or: “The examiner’s manual chart analysis and algorithmic analysis were not fully consistent. The physiological result has therefore been interpreted cautiously.”
6. Risk Band
“Based on the polygraph outcome, disclosures, collateral information, seriousness of the issue, base-rate considerations, and examiner–algorithm agreement, the examination is reported as [Low / Medium / High] Risk.”
7. Interpretation and Recommendation
“This risk band is not a finding of fact. It is a structured risk-management opinion arising from the examination and should be considered alongside all available information.”
Important Safeguards for Risk-Banded Reporting
Risk-banded reporting is a professional tool. Like any tool, it can be misused. The following safeguards should be observed by every examiner who produces a risk-banded report and by every professional who receives one:
- Do not treat a Significant Response as proof. A Significant Response raises concern. It does not prove that a behaviour occurred.
- Do not treat a No Significant Response as proof that no risk exists. The absence of a physiological response does not guarantee that a behaviour did not occur.
- Do not treat an algorithmic result as superior to the examiner’s professional judgement. Algorithmic outputs are adjuncts to professional analysis, not replacements for it.
- Do not ignore disclosures. Disclosures made before, during or after testing may be the most important information produced by the examination.
- Do not ignore base rates. The prior probability of the target behaviour affects the practical significance of any examination result.
- Do not report beyond the scope of the questions asked. The risk band applies only to the issues and time period tested.
- Do not generalise the risk band to unrelated conduct or character. A risk formulation addresses a specific screening issue, not the person’s general honesty, personality or moral standing.
- Do not use risk bands as a substitute for legal advice, safeguarding assessment, clinical judgement, employer investigation or probation decision-making. The risk band is one source of structured information within a broader professional process.
Preferred Language
| Use | Avoid |
|---|---|
| “raises concern” | “proves deception” |
| “supports further enquiry” | “confirms guilt” |
| “is directionally consistent” | “guarantees safety” |
| “should be interpreted alongside” | “algorithm confirms lying” |
| “does not amount to proof” | “passed means no risk” |
| “structured professional judgement” | “failed means high risk” |
| “risk-management opinion” | — |
| “within the scope of the questions asked” | — |
Who Benefits from Risk-Banded Reporting?
Risk-banded reporting is designed to assist any professional or individual who needs to understand the practical significance of a screening polygraph result and to make proportionate decisions based on structured information:
- Solicitors and barristers — who may instruct polygraph examinations in defence preparation, safeguarding proceedings, family law matters or civil disputes and require clearly reasoned, professionally defensible reports.
- Therapists and clinical professionals — who may use disclosure polygraph examinations as part of therapeutic programmes and need structured risk information to inform treatment planning.
- Employers and compliance officers — who may use screening examinations in contexts involving workplace integrity, security clearance or regulatory compliance.
- Investigators and safeguarding professionals — who need structured, multi-source risk information to support safeguarding decisions and multi-agency working.
- Probation and offender management professionals — who may receive polygraph reports as part of post-conviction supervision and need clear, contextualised risk communication.
- Private clients — who may instruct domestic or relationship polygraph examinations and benefit from a structured explanation of what the result means in practice.
Principles of Professionally Defensible Risk-Banded Reporting
Risk-banded reporting is only useful if it is constructed carefully, reported transparently, and interpreted proportionately. The following principles should guide every risk-banded polygraph report:
- The risk band must not be a mechanical translation of the test result. A Significant Response does not automatically mean High Risk. A No Significant Response does not automatically mean Low Risk. The band must reflect the totality of the examination, not the chart data alone.
- The basis for the formulation must be stated. The report should clearly identify which inputs — physiological outcome, disclosures, collateral information, seriousness, base-rate considerations, examiner–algorithm agreement — informed the risk band and why.
- The limitations must be acknowledged. A polygraph examination is not a clinical diagnosis, a legal verdict, or a guarantee of truthfulness. The risk band applies only to the issues and time period tested.
- The report must avoid absolutist language. Phrases such as “the polygraph confirms that…” or “the subject was deceptive” overstate the evidential weight of the examination. Preferred language includes “the examination raises significant concern”, “the examination did not identify an immediate reason to increase concern”, or “further enquiry is recommended”.
- The formulation should be proportionate. The risk band should reflect the strength and consistency of the evidence, the seriousness of the issue, and the practical consequences of the classification.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is risk-banded reporting in a screening polygraph examination?
Risk-banded reporting is a structured method of presenting screening polygraph results using High, Medium and Low Risk categories. Instead of reporting only the physiological outcome, the examiner formulates a practical level of concern based on the polygraph result, disclosures, collateral information, seriousness of the issue, base-rate considerations, and examiner–algorithm agreement. The risk band is a structured professional judgement, not a finding of fact.
Does a Significant Response automatically mean High Risk?
No. A Significant Response is one input into the risk formulation, but it does not automatically produce a High Risk band. The risk band must consider all available information. A Significant Response without supporting disclosure, collateral evidence or contextual concern may be more appropriately reported as Medium Risk pending further enquiry.
Can a No Significant Response still involve risk?
Yes. A No Significant Response indicates that the physiological data did not show a meaningful response to the relevant questions. However, if a serious disclosure was made during the examination, or if collateral information contradicts the physiological finding, the risk band may still be Medium or High. The absence of a physiological response does not guarantee the absence of risk.
How should disclosures be treated in a screening polygraph report?
Disclosures made before, during or after testing should be reported separately from the physiological result and considered independently in the risk formulation. In some cases, the disclosure may be the most important finding from the examination — particularly where it reveals breach, access, opportunity or safeguarding concern. The risk band should reflect the significance of the disclosure alongside the physiological data.
What role does algorithmic analysis play in polygraph reporting?
Algorithmic analysis provides a statistical estimate that may assist the examiner in evaluating the physiological data. Where the algorithmic output is directionally consistent with the examiner’s manual chart analysis, confidence in the physiological interpretation is increased. Where there is disagreement, the examiner should interpret the result cautiously and consider quality assurance or re-examination. Algorithmic analysis is an adjunct to professional judgement, not a replacement for it.
How should High, Medium and Low Risk bands be used?
Risk bands are designed to support proportionate decision-making. A Low Risk formulation supports continued monitoring at the current level. A Medium Risk formulation supports further enquiry, collateral review or re-examination. A High Risk formulation supports prompt review, safeguarding escalation, or further investigation. The risk band should always be interpreted in context and alongside all available information. It should not be treated as a verdict, diagnosis, or standalone determination of fact.
Conclusion
Risk-banded reporting offers a structured, transparent and professionally defensible way of communicating the practical significance of screening polygraph results. By separating the physiological outcome from the risk formulation, and by grounding the formulation in six clearly identified inputs, the examiner provides the instructing professional with information that is useful, proportionate and contextualised.
The key principle is straightforward: the polygraph result is not the risk band. The risk band is a structured professional judgement that considers the physiological outcome alongside disclosures, collateral information, the seriousness of the issue, base-rate considerations, and the degree of examiner–algorithm agreement.
When constructed carefully and reported transparently, risk-banded reporting helps solicitors, therapists, employers, investigators, safeguarding professionals and private clients understand what the examination found, what it means in context, and what proportionate action — if any — the findings support.
This article is provided for general information only. A polygraph examination is not a clinical diagnosis, legal verdict, or guarantee of truthfulness. Results should be interpreted cautiously and in context. Risk-banded formulations are structured professional judgements, not findings of fact. Where there are safeguarding, legal, or mental health concerns, appropriate professional advice should be sought.
Dr Keith Ashcroft is a Chartered Psychologist, polygraph examiner, and member of the American Polygraph Association at the Centre for Forensic Neuroscience. If you are a solicitor, therapist, employer, investigator, safeguarding professional or private client considering a screening polygraph examination, you can contact Dr Ashcroft to discuss whether the issue is suitable for polygraph testing, how relevant questions may be framed, and how results can be reported responsibly.