Flow liquefaction remains a critical concern in the design, operation, and risk assessment of tailings storage facilities and other geotechnical systems founded on contractive, saturated soils. Although Cone Penetration Testing (CPT), Standard Penetration Testing (SPT), and shear wave velocity (Vs) measurements are widely employed to evaluate liquefaction susceptibility, uncertainty remains regarding their relative reliability, consistency, and suitability for flow liquefaction assessment. This study presents a comparative evaluation of these three in situ methods using field data obtained from representative site conditions. The analysis focuses on each method’s capability to characterize contractive soil behaviour and assessment of cyclic resistance. The results indicate that some stratigraphic layers exhibit a low susceptibility to cyclic liquefaction under the anticipated seismic loading conditions but appear potentially vulnerable to static liquefaction. This distinction highlights the need to consider both material susceptibility and triggering mechanisms when evaluating liquefaction risk. The absence of a credible seismic trigger does not necessarily eliminate the potential for liquefaction where soils exhibit contractive behaviour and low post-liquefaction strength. In such cases, additional evaluation of possible static triggers, including rapid loading, slope instability, construction activities, and operational changes, is warranted. Conversely, where neither cyclic nor credible static triggers are identified, the practical likelihood of liquefaction may remain low despite indicators of susceptibility. Agreement among CPT-, SPT-, and Vs-based assessments increases confidence in the interpretation of soil behaviour, and the findings support the integration of multiple in situ testing methods within a comprehensive, site-specific framework for evaluating flow liquefaction risk in mine waste environments.