The purpose of this article is to extend previous discussion of the relationship between coronial verdicts of suicide and suicide statistics, through a detailed examination of coronial decision-making during 130 inquests in Queensland, Australia between 2004 and 2018. This research suggests that the official category of suicide does not have the same meaning for different coroners, and it is unlikely that coroners follow the same rules in assigning particular cases to given categories. This is complicated by several factors: the feedback loops between researchers and coroners, where researchers rely on coronial data and coroners rely on research findings; beliefs about ‘suicide prone’ populations; and the role of coroners in offering closure for families and meaning for society. Suicide is a social fact, and how it is counted depends upon the norms, protocols and concepts operating within any given coroner’s court. We conclude that administrative options beyond the binary of suicide/not suicide would have the most impact on enabling suicide findings to be more consistent and defensible.