Best Practice 

Recommendation for the 

Resolution of Conflicts in 

Friction Ridge 

Examination

Friction Ridge Subcommittee

Physics/Pattern Scientific Area Committee

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science
ii

Best Practice Recommendation for the Resolution of Conflicts in 

Friction Ridge Examination

OSAC Proposed BPR

Best Practice Recommendation for the 

Resolution of Conflicts in Friction 

Ridge Examination

Prepared by

Friction Ridge Subcommittee

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science

Version: 1.0

September 2019

Disclaimer:

This document has been developed by the Friction Ridge Subcommittee of the Organization of 

Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science through a consensus process and 

proposed for further development through a Standard Developing Organization (SDO). This 

document is being made available so that the forensic science community and interested parties 

can consider the recommendations of the OSAC pertaining to applicable forensic science 

practices. The document was developed with input from experts in a broad array of forensic 

science disciplines as well as scientific research, measurement science, statistics, law, and policy.

This document has not been published by a SDO. Its contents are subject to change during the 

standards development process. All stakeholder groups or individuals are strongly encouraged to 

submit comments on this proposed document during the open comment period administered by 

the Academy Standards Board (ASB). 
iii

Best Practice Recommendation for the Resolution of Conflicts in 

Friction Ridge Examination

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

2. Scope ................................................................................................................................. 1

3. Terms and Definitions..................................................................................................... 2

4. General Requirements / Recommendations.................................................................. 3

5. Appendix A: Change Log................................................................................................ 5
1

Best Practice Recommendation for the Resolution of Conflicts in 

Friction Ridge Examination

1. Introduction

1.1. This document has been developed with the objective of improving the quality and 

consistency of friction ridge examination practices.

1.2. The potential for differing suitability decisions or source conclusions is an inevitable 

result of the subjective interpretation of friction ridge impressions, particularly for those 

impressions where the quantity and quality of observed data are low and require more 

subjective interpretation.

1.3. For the purposes of this document, it is assumed that the examiner assigned to the case 

has completed their friction ridge examination and has submitted the impression(s) to a 

second examiner for review/verification. NOTE: Forensic Service Provider (FSP) policy 

dictates which suitability decisions and source conclusions are verified and whether or 

not verification takes place in conjunction with technical review.

1.4. When a conflict with a suitability decision or source conclusion occurs, the conflict must 

be documented and examiners should have clear procedures to follow in order to 

ascertain whether the conflict can be resolved. Under no circumstances shall any 

examiner be forced or coerced into agreeing with, or writing a technical report in support 

of, a source conclusion with which they do not agree.

1.5. Additionally, FSP management should have processes in place to track the causes and 

frequency of conflicts between examiners. The types of conflict, root causes of conflicts, 

or frequency of conflicts may illuminate the need for: supplemental training, additional 

mentoring, policy and procedure updates, or enhanced monitoring of case work.

1.6. In this document, the following verbal forms are used: “shall” indicates a requirement, 

“should” indicates a recommendation; “may” indicates permission; and “can” indicates a 

possibility or capability. 

2. Scope

2.1. This document describes the best practice recommendations for how to resolve conflicts 

between examiners at any point in the technical review or verification process. This 

document specifies and provides examples for addressing the following:

2.1.1. Conflicting suitability decisions

2.1.2. Conflicting source conclusions

2.1.3. Documentation of Conflict Resolution

2.2. This document does not address differences of opinion that occur at the consultation 

level or any organizational response once an error is discovered or the conflict(s) are 

resolved.
2

Best Practice Recommendation for the Resolution of Conflicts in 

Friction Ridge Examination

3. Terms and Definitions

For the purposes of this document, the following terms and definitions apply.

3.1. Blind Verification: A type of verification in which the subsequent examiner(s) has no 

knowledge of the original examiner’s decisions, conclusions or observed data used to 

support the conclusion.

3.2. Conflict: A condition in which two or more examiners disagree on a suitability decision 

or source conclusion.

3.3. Consensus Review (Consensus Opinion): A type of examination in which a reported 

decision or conclusion is determined that reflects the collective judgement (e.g. majority) 

of a group of examiners.

3.4. Forensic Service Provider (FSP): A forensic science entity or forensic science 

practitioner providing forensic science services.

3.5. Observed Data: Any demonstrable information observed within an impression that an 

examiner relies upon to reach a decision, conclusion or opinion. This has historically 

been expressed as “features” or “minutiae,” but the use of the broader term “observed 

data” is inclusive of other types of data that may be considered beyond minutiae, such as 

quality, scars, creases, edge shapes, pore structure, and other friction ridge features.

3.6. Source Conclusions: Findings or statements expressed as opinion and made by an 

examiner after interpretation of observed data. They may offer support for one 

proposition over another. One of the five following conclusions: Source Exclusion 

(EXC), Support for Different Source (SDS), Inconclusive/Lacking Support (INC), 

Support for Same Source (SSS), or Source Identification (ID).

3.7. Suitability Decisions (Utility Decisions): A decision made by an examiner in accordance 

with FSP policy and/or procedure as to whether or not an impression will proceed to the 

next step in the examination process. Examples of these decisions may include 

“Suitability for ABIS/AFIS Searching Decisions”, “Suitability for Comparison 

Decisions” or other utility decisions.

3.8. Suitability for Comparison Decision (Suitability for Source Conclusions): A decision 

made by an examiner in accordance with FSP policy and/or procedure, that a friction 

ridge impression contains sufficient observed data to be utilized for comparison and a 

Source Conclusion can potentially be reached. This designation is often referred to as 

“suitable for comparison” or “of value for comparison”.

3.9. Technical Review: A qualified second party's evaluation of reports, notes, data, and 

other documentation to ensure there is appropriate and sufficient support for the actions, 

results, conclusions, opinions, and interpretations.
3

Best Practice Recommendation for the Resolution of Conflicts in 

Friction Ridge Examination

3.10. Verification: Confirmation, through either re-examination or review of documented 

data by another examiner, that a conclusion or opinion conforms to specified 

requirements and is reproducible. NOTE: “Specified requirements” are the FSP’s 

policies and procedures relating to Analysis, Comparison and Evaluation of friction 

ridge impressions.

4. General Requirements / Recommendations

4.1. Options of Conflict Resolution: A conflict may be resolved through a consultation 

among the conflicting examiners, or it may escalate to requiring blind verification, 

consensus opinion, or an outside agency review. These escalated options should 

include the oversight of the responsible management.

4.2. Conflicting Suitability Decisions (Value / No Value) or Source Conclusions: Conflict 

resolution is required when examiners disagree on a suitability decision or a source 

conclusion. The following scenarios are simplified, and it is recognized that cases 

often have numerous friction ridge impressions and could involve more than one 

conflict and resolution process. When conflicting suitability decisions (value/no 

value) or source conclusions occur, one of the following steps is recommended to 

resolve the conflict.

4.2.1. Remediating Interaction: The original examiner and the second examiner 

(verifier) should attempt to resolve the conflicting suitability decisions or source 

conclusions via consultation with an attempt to arrive at a mutually agreed upon 

decision or conclusion that is best supported by the observed data. If agreement is 

achieved, the conflict resolution process concludes and is documented in the case 

file. If agreement is not achieved, the disagreements shall be noted in the case 

record and the conflict resolution process should proceed to the responsible 

manager to determine and utilize the most appropriate option(s) to resolve the 

conflict (i.e. option(s) that is(are) available to the FSP).

4.2.1.1. Impact of Suitability Changes on Source Conclusions:

4.2.1.1.1. If the conflict resolution process results in the original examiner 

changing a “no value” decision to a “value” decision, it shall be 

left up to the FSP to determine if there is a consequence (e.g. 

removed from casework, corrective action, etc.) to the original 

examiner for not rendering a source conclusion.

4.2.1.1.2. If the conflict resolution process results in the original examiner 

changing a “value” decision (and resulting conclusion) to a “no 

value” decision, the original examiner’s source conclusion shall be 

kept in the case record.

4.2.2. Managerial Options: When agreement between two examiners cannot be reached, 

the conflict resolution should elevate to Managerial Review. A 
4

Best Practice Recommendation for the Resolution of Conflicts in 

Friction Ridge Examination

supervisor/manager, technical lead, or other designee shall determine the next 

steps to resolve the conflict. Options for the resolution may include Blind 

Verification, Consensus Review(Consensus Opinion) and/or Outside Agency 

Examination:

4.2.2.1. Blind Verification: 

4.2.2.1.1. A third examiner (who may be a bench-level examiner, technical 

lead or technical supervisor/manager) shall compare the friction 

ridge impressions in question and document their source 

conclusion in the case record. This shall be done blindly, i.e. the 

third examiner should be shielded from the decisions, conclusions 

and documented data of the other two examiners. The three source 

conclusions (original examiner, second examiner, and third 

examiner) shall be reviewed to determine if two of the source 

conclusions agree and how the case should proceed. If the third 

examiner wishes to consult with either the original or second 

examiner, they shall have their source conclusion documented first 

and that interaction shall be recorded in the case file.

4.2.2.1.2. If the third examiner agrees with the suitability decisions or source 

conclusions of the original examiner, the original examiner should 

retain the case.

4.2.2.1.3. If the third examiner agrees with the suitability decisions or source 

conclusions of the second examiner, the case should be transferred 

to the second examiner and this transfer shall be documented in the 

case record.

4.2.2.2. Consensus Review (Consensus Opinion):

4.2.2.2.1. It shall be up to the FSP to determine the appropriate number of 

examiners necessary for a consensus panel. At a minimum, the 

source conclusions of all examiners on the consensus panel shall 

be recorded in the case file and the collective majority opinion 

shall be reported. The FSP shall have a policy to determine how 

that collective opinion is reported.

4.2.2.3. Outside Agency Examination:

4.2.2.3.1. Friction ridge evidence should be submitted to an outside FSP

without providing the results of the conflicting examiners. The 

results of the outside agency examination should be forwarded to 

the FSP manager or representative for review. The FSP shall have 

a policy to determine how that outside agency examination result is 

reported.
5

Best Practice Recommendation for the Resolution of Conflicts in 

Friction Ridge Examination

4.3. No Consensus Source Conclusion Reached: If the above methods do not resolve 

conflicting source conclusions, all source conclusions shall be recorded in the case 

record. The FSP shall report that a consensus source conclusion could not be reached 

and shall determine how the results of the examination are reported.

4.4. Documentation

4.4.1. The level of documentation needed for conflict resolution will vary according to 

the nature of the conflict and according to FSP policy. For all conflict resolutions, 

the minimum documentation shall include:

4.4.1.1. All examiner suitability decisions and source conclusions

4.4.1.2. Image mark-ups of the observed data used to support the suitability 

decision(s) and/or source conclusion(s)

4.4.1.3. Personal identifier and date of all examiner suitability decisions and 

source conclusions

4.4.1.4. Dates and outcomes of consultations between examiners

4.4.1.5. Any changes in the suitability decisions and source conclusions, whose 

decision or conclusions changed, and the date the decision or conclusion 

changed

4.4.1.6. If a case is reassigned: the date the case was reassigned, the reason the 

case was reassigned, to whom it was reassigned, and the original 

examiner(s) notes shall be retained

5. Appendix A: Change Log

Version Date Change

1.0 9/6/2019 Original Issue