BackgroundExpert elicitation is a powerful tool when modelling complex problems especially in the common scenario where current probabilities are unknown and data is unavailable for certain regions of the probability space. Such methods are now widely developed, well understood, and have been used to model systems in a variety of domains including climate change, food insecurity, and nuclear risk assessment [4,27,15]. However, eliciting expert probabilities faithfully has proved to be a sensitive task, particularly in multivariate settings. We argue that first eliciting structure is critical to the accuracy of the model, particularly as conducting a probability elicitation is time and resource-intensive.An appropriate model structure fulfils two criteria. Firstly, it should be compatible with how experts naturally describe a process. Ideally, modellers should agree upon a structure using natural language. Secondly, any structure should ideally have the potential to eventually be embellished through probabilistic elicitation into a full probability model. It is often essential to determine that the structure of a problem as desired by a client is actually consistent with the class of structural models considered. The logic and dynamics of Bayesian networks often do not match with an experts' description of a problem. When this happens, a customising approach as we illustrate below generates flexible models that are a more accurate representation of the process described by the domain expert. We show that these alternative graph models often admit a supporting formal framework and subsequent probabilistic model similar to a BN while more faithfully representing the beliefs of the experts.