The absence of an investigation can eventually produce an absence of evidence and that absence may then be offered as a reason why investigation would achieve little. That is a very dangerous institutional circle. Frameworks predating the pandemic recognised the importance of preserving evidence and coordinating police, healthcare and regulatory responses where suspected criminality arose. By July 2020, an official cross-government paper was also examining whether disrupted care, premature discharge and reduced access to hospital treatment could contribute to deaths. That analysis did not establish crimes. It did, however, establish that potentially fatal consequences beyond infection were recognised subjects of official concern. So what safeguards ensured that national non-recording guidance could never displace the proper assessment of an identifiable death or serious injury? • Who defined its scope? • Who authorised it? • What assessment preceded its application? • Who checked for cases wrongly excluded? Logging information as intelligence does not answer whether any alleged offence was adequately assessed. The question is whether a national approach made serious allegations less visible before their merits had been properly examined. Calling non-recording “a success” makes disclosure more necessary. Show the guidance. Show the safeguards. Show the decisions. Show how the claimed success was tested. Fewer recorded allegations are no evidence of fewer victims.