How to say “Refer to former employee” professionally

Level 1: For context on that specific deliverable, I believe [Former Employee Name] was the primary owner. Their documentation or project notes might provide the necessary detail, or perhaps [Current Colleague] who shadowed them briefly could offer some initial insights.

Level 2: My understanding is that [Former Employee Name] held the institutional knowledge regarding that particular process. To ensure we retrieve the most accurate information, it would be beneficial to review any archived communications or documentation from their tenure, which might be accessible via [shared drive/archive].

Level 3: As per the updated RACI matrix, the 'Responsible' party for that specific historical initiative was designated as [Former Employee Name]. I recommend consulting the project's archived Confluence page, where their comprehensive, albeit now static, contributions should clarify the parameters we are apparently now revisiting.

Level 4: That specific area of expertise resided solely with [Former Employee Name], and without their direct input or a comprehensive knowledge transfer at the time, any attempt to reconstruct that information will significantly delay current critical path items. We need to assess if this is truly a priority given the resource allocation required.

Level 5: They're gone. Ask their ghost.

Level 1: To ensure we address your request accurately with historical context, [Former Employee Name] was the primary contact for that specific project phase. We're currently reviewing their handover notes to provide you with the most comprehensive information available.

Level 2: Our records indicate that [Former Employee Name] managed the details surrounding that particular deliverable. While we are committed to providing continuity, there may be specific nuances that only they could fully elaborate on. We are consolidating all available information to best support your needs.

Level 3: Regarding that specific historical deliverable, the primary architect of record was [Former Employee Name]. All pertinent documentation, which we presume was diligently uploaded to the shared client portal by them, should contain the answers to these surprisingly persistent inquiries.

Level 4: That specific scope of work was completed under the direct supervision of [Former Employee Name] and finalized prior to my involvement. Any modifications or re-evaluations of that original scope would constitute a change request, requiring a new statement of work and potentially impacting current timelines and budget.

Level 5: They took their talents elsewhere. So should you.

Level 1: My understanding is that [Former Employee Name] was the primary point of contact for that particular task. You might find relevant details in their archived project files or by checking the shared team documentation they maintained.

Level 2: That specific workflow was largely managed by [Former Employee Name] during their tenure. While I can offer general guidance, for the granular details or specific precedents, reviewing their historical records or consulting someone who worked closely with them might yield more precise answers.

Level 3: Ah, yes, that particular tribal knowledge resided exclusively with [Former Employee Name], who, regrettably, took it with them. Perhaps the exhaustive onboarding documentation they definitely completed before leaving details the steps, or perhaps we could create a new process entirely, from scratch, together.

Level 4: That was squarely [Former Employee Name]'s responsibility and area of expertise. I don't have the context or capacity to pick up their legacy tasks without clear direction and additional resources. We need to formalize who now owns this moving forward.

Level 5: They quit. You should too.