Clarus found that communication between forensic and investigative practitioners happens through both formal and informal pathways, and that both can help and both can create risk for bias and miscommunication. 

Formal communication may be standardised, traceable, and required by procedure, but that does not mean it is always perfectly clear. Information in a report or request may still be incomplete, overly broad, or shaped by assumptions. Informal communication can help people solve problems and clarify what is needed, but it can also pass on irrelevant details, personal opinions, or contextual narratives that influence interpretation without being properly recorded.  
 
Miscommunication can occur in both formal and informal communication. Information may be misunderstood, incomplete, overly technical, ambiguous, or interpreted differently by people with different professional backgrounds. In digital forensic investigations, even small misunderstandings can affect requests, expectations, decision-making, and the interpretation of findings. Understanding where these risks arise is an important step towards improving communication across the investigation process.