This article examines why investigative interview methods must be evaluated by the reliability of the process rather than by investigator confidence, experience, or whether the subject ultimately agreed. It explains how disciplined questioning, documentation, contamination control, uncertainty management, and careful development of information strengthen the integrity of a statement. The article also considers how interview methods may later be examined in court and argues that investigators must be able to explain what they did, why they did it, and how the process protected the information obtained. Reliability is not created after an interview is challenged; it must be built into the interview from the beginning.