Scope analysis (II)

The framework I use for defining scope then considers locations.
"Now the focus of my attention will be this house as that is where you want to beef up security but to conduct the processes we have agreed I will have to travel to the poilice station, relatives homes and Mr Court's home - where did he live, by the way?"
"In his room."
"That was his only home?"
"Yes."
"Good grief - really?"
"It's a condition of employment with me. My servants live in the mansion."
Lord Todd was a Rock God, he also lived in a bygone age and was just a little crazy. I shrugged. If this was Mr Court's only home then this was his home. The next part of my scope framework was applications and technology.
"I will need to understand all your current security - cameras, motion detectors and so on. That reminds me - I will need to work with your current security firm as well." This was a 'people' part of the scope and the fact it had popped out like this didn't surprise me: as I said, analysis is rarely linear, it bounces around as thoughts and insights arise. The trick is to recognise the bouncing around and categorise correctly to build up a full, structured analysis.
"Ah, good. Well as it happens I have already got someone from TripleA assigned to you. They are waiting outside."
"Great. I'll get together with them after this chat and organise next steps." The last part of my standard framework for defining scope is data. "So Lord Todd, if I am to conduct all the processes we discussed, I will need to understand everything about Mr Court and his relationships...it will inevitably mean examining you and and your relationships as far as they impact the investigation. In short, I will be poking my nose in to your affairs as well as Mr Court's."
"I can't see how my affairs can have any bearing - " he started to say. I cut him off.
"Are you saying I can't include information about you in this investigation? If so, I should warn you that you are significantly increasing the risk of failure as I may not get the full picture of who attacked Mr Court and so how they did it." I have found it helps to cut the waffle and explain the risks that an unrealistic constraint on an investigation has when they arise. Quite often the decision make still goes ahead and whoever is making this decision "accepts the risk" or "underwrites the decision" (my favourite piece of gobbeldygook in this context). It's funny how when the risk materialises and becomes an issue that impedes the investigation (or even causes failure) that these same people suddenly find the risk unacceptable and do not "underwrite" it (whatever that means)!
Lord Todd said "Do what you need to do but you will be bound by non-disclosure agreements that I will aggresively enforce. Tell no-one anything that they positively do not need to know." Another principle to abide by.
"Fine. Right, next steps are that I will write this up and it will be the objective and scope of this investigation. Then I will plan the execution of processes - and work with your security firm - TripleA? - rep."
"Write this up? But you haven't been taking notes..."
"No - but I have been recording." And I showed him the voice recorded I carry around for just this purpose. It had been on since our conversation had started.
He sighed, he raised his eyes. "That," he said, "will definitely be suject to non-disclosure!".