Final answer:
An investigator should address the inability to obtain complete information in their report, explaining why certain coverage could not be achieved. This degree of transparency is essential, as drawing conclusions from incomplete evidence is a critical fault. Such limitations directly relate to the challenges of adverse selection in the insurance industry.
Step-by-step explanation:
When an investigator working on a case such as fraud investigation in the insurance industry encounters a situation where they cannot obtain complete information or coverage, this limitation should be addressed and explained in the investigative report. The report must document areas where information was inaccessible and provide reasoning as to why, which could be due to a variety of factors such as privacy laws, inability to access certain records, or non-cooperation from individuals involved. Explaining these limitations is not only crucial for transparency but also important in the decision-making process, as assumptions or conclusions cannot be drawn from incomplete evidence.
Moreover, the principle of not using the absence of evidence as a conclusive proof must be adhered to; one cannot infer that just because something cannot be proven to not be the cause that it is the cause ('argument from ignorance' fallacy). Consequently, when dealing with cases of potential adverse selection, where the asymmetric information is present between the insurer and the insured, such complexities must be straightforwardly detailed in the final report.