[brief] People believe that forensic science reliability does not vary much across types of evidence.**  Forensic disciplines lie on a continuum from least to most reliable.  For example, single-source DNA profile comparisons tend to be very accurate and have a body of literature that has established an error rate.  Fingerprint comparisons are comparatively reliable, but tend not to be as reliable as single-source DNA profile comparison.  Other disciplines such as bitemarks, voice analysis, or even other types of DNA analysis (such as mitochondrial DNA comparisons or DNA mixture analyses) are far less reliable because they are more difficult and require more subjective decisions on the part of the analyst.  Garrett, *Autopsy of a Crime Lab*; National Research Council.  Each discipline also includes a potentially dizzying array of limitations, unstandardized procedures, training, and discretion that needs to be considered when judging reliability.  So, the reliability of an analysis in any particular case will depend on the discipline, the particular jurisdiction or laboratory and what procedures are used there, and whether the analyst followed those procedures when performing this examination.  Ordinary people can often tell when evidence is very reliable, but they struggle to sufficiently adjust when faced with evidence that is less reliable, such as bitemarks or hair analysis.  Spellman & Quigley-McBride, *supra*, at 449.  Most people tend to think forensic disciplines have similar levels of repeatability and reproducibility and, even when they realize a discipline is less reliable, they think the difference is substantially smaller than it truly is.  [...] & [...], *Beyond CSI: Calibrating public beliefs about the reliability of forensic science through openness and transparency*, 62 Sci. & Just. 272 (2022); see also Garrett, *Autopsy of a Crime Lab*.  Even within evidence types there can be substantial variation in error and reliability.  As discussed above, (*supra*, Point II, B) fingerprint evidence has a stronger scientific basis than most other forensic techniques, and studies that suggest very low error rates.  However, when the nature of the fingerprint task changes, so does the error rate.  For example, when examining close non-matches (fingerprints that share many similar features but are not from the same source), error rates are substantially higher.  Compare Koehler & Liu, *supra*, at 131 (error rates between 15.9% and 18.1% in close non-match cases) with [...], [...], [...] & [...], *Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent fingerprint decisions*, 108 Proceedings Nat’l Acad. of Scis., 7733 (2011) (error rate of less than 1% in other fingerprint cases).  Moreover, the increased use of algorithms to search large fingerprint databases for potential suspects increases the chance that latent print examiners will face close non-matches in casework.  [...], [...] & [...], *The relation between sensitivity, similar non-matches and database size in fingerprint database searches*, 13 L., Probability & Risk 151 (2014); see also [...], [...], [...] & [...], *The influence of Close Non-Match fingerprints similar in delta regions of whorls on fingerprint identification*, 66 J. Forensic Scis. 1482 (2021).  These concerns are compounded by other information available when conducting database searches that can bias examiners towards an identification decision such as rankings from the algorithm or the candidate’s demographic information and criminal history.  [...], [...], [...], & [...], *supra*, at 350.  **D.