I'll try to remember all of those things.
First of all, going back to your question of the need to be trauma-informed in this process and having lawyers involved, I think that when you're going through the investigation process and you have had trauma, there's an understanding that the brain experiences something very different. The responses you may have may be different in that process, as well. Having an antagonistic approach where you're against the organization and feel that you're having to prove yourself to the organization with your complaint is difficult. It makes you feel as if you're up against this wall of lawyers and risk managers, and you have no chance.
In order to obtain evidence appropriately, there must be trust. There must be safety. There has to be a level of respect and understanding, as well.
From an evidence contamination point, having the investigators going back and forth with information—like, she said that he said this; he said this or he said that—and going back throughout the process, if that case is eventually sent to a criminal investigation or if it should go to a criminal investigation, the evidence is already there. It's already been contaminated and handed over, so the defence already has a pathway.