Normatively, protecting civilians from the conduct of hostilities is grounded in the Geneva Conventions and the UN Security Council protection of civilian agenda, both of which celebrate their 70 and 20 year anniversaries in 2019. Previous research focusses heavily on protection of civilians through peacekeeping whereas this research focuses on ‘non-armed’ approaches to enhancing civilian protection in conflict. Prior research and experience reveals a high level of missingness and variation in the level of available data on civilian harm in conflict. Where civilian harm is considered in the peace and conflict literature, it is predominantly from a securitized lens of understanding insurgent recruitment strategies and more recent counter-insurgent strategies aimed at winning ‘hearts and minds’. Through a structured focused comparison of four case studies the correlation between the level of quality, timely and consistent data on civilian harm and affect on the conduct of hostilities will be reviewed and potential confounders identified. Following this the hypothesized causal mechanism will be process traced through the pathway case of Afghanistan. The findings and analysis from both methods identify support for the theory and it’s refinement with important nuances in the factors conducive to quality, timely and consistent data collection on civilian harm in armed conflict.