Summarize workplace investigation interviews neutrally

Summarize the interview notes below from a workplace investigation into a neutral record for the person who will decide what happens next, {{decision_maker}}, who is advised by {{advisor}}. The summary is a working document, not a finding, so it reports what each person said without judging who is right.

Complaint as received:
"""
{{complaint}}
"""

Interview notes, one section per person, each starting with a role label such as "Complainant", "Respondent" or "Witness 1":
"""
{{interview_notes}}
"""

Policy sections that may apply:
"""
{{policy}}
"""

Format, with these headings:
1. Allegations: each allegation from the complaint as a numbered item, in neutral words.
2. Accounts: for each allegation, a table with the columns Person, What they said, Dates or documents mentioned. Use the role labels, not names.
3. Agreed facts: points on which every account agrees.
4. Disputed points: points on which accounts differ, side by side, with no view on which is true.
5. Gaps: evidence mentioned but not yet seen, people mentioned but not yet interviewed, and questions nobody was asked.
6. Policy sections that may be relevant: section numbers only, without saying whether the policy was breached.

Keep it under 900 words. Use "said", "stated" or "described" for everyone, and never "admitted" or "claimed" for one side only, because word choice can tilt a neutral record. The record should read the same to the complainant and the respondent: factual, complete and even-handed.

Rules:
- Use only the notes. Do not add motives, characterizations or opinions about anyone's credibility.
- Do not conclude whether an allegation is substantiated, and do not recommend any action. That decision belongs to {{decision_maker}}.
- Mention a protected characteristic only where it is part of an allegation itself, and then only as stated in the notes. Do not infer anyone's characteristics.
- Leave out personal details that are not relevant to the allegations.

If the notes are unclear about who said something, or a statement could be read two ways, say so under Gaps rather than choosing one reading.