Qualifying the significance of associations ANAB 7.8.1.2.2

[4n6Dave]

Can anyone share how they are meeting ANAB 7.8.1.2.2 AR 3125 b) "requires qualifying the significance of associations in the report whether by a
statistic or a qualitative statement."

If you can share statements from your reports or excerpts of your tech manual.

Thank You
DJ

[LPDC3]

I believe that we do this with definitions of what makes an ID, exclusion, or inconclusive that appear at the bottom of every report

[Baltimore Forensics]

If an Identification is made, the report will have the following statement after the listed identification(s):


An Identification decision indicates that there is sufficient quality and quantity of detail in agreement to conclude that two friction ridge impressions originated from the same source.

[g.]

Another benefit of adopting the 2018 proposed OSAC standard for conclusions. The definitions ALREADY meet this requirement (by deliberate design).

"Source Identification is the strongest degree of association between two friction ridge impressions. It is the conclusion that the observations provide extremely strong support for the proposition that the impressions originated from the same source.
Source Identification is reached when the friction ridge impressions have corresponding ridge detail and the examiner would not expect to see the same arrangement of details repeated in an impression that came from a different source. "

Just putting your agency's definition of identification doesn't necessarily address the element:
"requires qualifying the significance of associations"

Whereas the OSAC portion "strongest degree of association" does.

These ANAB requirements are multi-disciplinary. In disciplines like trace, handwriting, where conclusions/associations can have different 'degrees of strength/association' it is important to inform the end-users what different associations can be made and what the relative magnitudes are.

g.