In forensic engineering, technical analyses frequently guide significant legal and financial outcomes. Therefore, the reliability and clarity of investigation reports are crucial. These documents form the basis of expert testimony, translating complex engineering concepts for legal professionals, judges, and juries. Ensuring this communication is effective and legally sound requires adherence to established standards – it’s more than good practice; it’s fundamental.

A key guiding framework in this field is ASTM E620-18, titled “Standard Practice for Reporting Opinions of Scientific or Technical Experts”. Although it doesn’t impose a strict format, this standard outlines the essential information required in formal technical reports intended for, or potentially involved in, litigation. Its international recognition solidifies its status as a globally accepted benchmark for expert reporting.

Why Following ASTM E620-18 Matters:

Adhering to ASTM E620-18 is vital for several reasons:

• Ensuring Reliability and Integrity: By outlining necessary report components, ASTM E620-18 helps to guarantee that these documents are thorough, accurate, and can withstand critical review.
• Providing a Common Framework: The standard offers globally recognized guidelines, promoting consistency and mutual understanding across different jurisdictions and among various stakeholders.
• Tailoring for Legal Contexts: ASTM E620-18 is specifically designed for reports used in or anticipated for legal proceedings, making it directly relevant to forensic engineering practice.
• Promoting Clarity and Understandability: The standard emphasizes clear, unambiguous communication, ensuring technical findings are accessible even to non-technical audiences.
• Distinguishing Facts from Opinions: A core principle is the clear separation and identification of factual data from the expert’s interpretations, conclusions, and opinions. This distinction is crucial for maintaining objectivity and transparency.
• Enhancing Legal Defensibility: Reports adhering to this standard are inherently more credible and reliable in legal settings, bolstering their defensibility.

Principles for Writing a High-Quality Forensic Engineering Report:

While ASTM E620-18 focuses on content rather than a rigid format, its principles, combined with established best practices, guide the creation of robust and effective forensic engineering reports. Key elements include:

1. Comprehensive Descriptive Information: Ensure the report includes a clear title, a unique identifier on each page, the report number and date, details of the requesting party, a precise description of the scope of the assignment, information about all contributing experts, and the report author(s) with signatures, a clear indication of the report’s end, and the location of any testing performed.
2. Detailed Examination and Testing Information: Present the results of all tests, including units of measurement. Clearly describe the items examined, providing identifying data. Detail the sampling methods, locations, and the scope of investigative activities. Precisely identify the methods used for observations, calculations, and testing, specifying any relevant versions and dates.
3. Thorough Presentation of Pertinent Facts and Data: Categorize and report all relevant facts. This includes data based on direct observations, other sources relied upon, and critical details such as sampling dates, environmental conditions, locations (potentially using visuals), and procedural specifics.
4. Clear Articulation of Interpretations, Conclusions, and Opinions: Ensure all interpretations, conclusions, and opinions are distinctly identified and fully supported by the presented data. Provide sufficient information to allow a qualified peer to evaluate the findings and form an independent opinion.
5. Language, Clarity, and Objectivity: Employ accurate, clear, and unambiguous language. Report all observations and results objectively, without bias. Methodologies must be detailed enough to permit independent review and replication.
6. Judicious Use of Visual Aids: While ASTM E620-18 may not explicitly mandate visuals beyond sampling locations, effectively incorporate diagrams, sketches, and photographs to enhance clarity and understanding, especially for complex spatial information.
7. Transparency Regarding Methodology, Assumptions, and Limitations: Clearly document all methodologies employed. Although ASTM E620-18 does not specifically mandate separate sections on assumptions and limitations, these aspects should be implicitly clear through comprehensive reporting of pertinent facts and disclosure of any deviations from standard procedures.
8. Adherence to Review and Quality Control Best Practices: Although ASTM E620-18 doesn’t detail review processes, it’s crucial to implement internal quality control. This includes measures like peer reviews, clear and logical formatting, detailed explanations of scientific principles, and thorough documentation of evidence, maintaining a clear chain of custody. Aim for definitive conclusions while scrupulously preserving objectivity and impartiality.

Our Commitment to Standards:

At Mission Critical Forensics, we are firmly committed to upholding the highest standards in forensic engineering reporting, aligning with industry best practices. For all comprehensive forensic engineering reports, we meticulously adhere to the guidelines established by ASTM E620-18 to ensure clarity, accuracy, and defensibility. Should a summary report be provided instead of a full, detailed analysis, a clear and explicit note stating this limitation will be included within it. This approach ensures our clients receive reports that are both thorough and transparent.

By embracing the principles outlined in ASTM E620-18 and integrating broader best practices, forensic engineers can produce reports that are not only technically sound but also clear, credible, and effectively communicate complex findings to all intended audiences.