Guideline for the Articulation 

of the Decision-Making 

Process Leading to an Expert 

Opinion of Source 

Identification in Friction 

Ridge Examinations

Friction Ridge Subcommittee

Physics/Pattern Scientific Area Committee

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

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

OSAC Proposed BPR

Guideline for the Articulation of the 

Decision-Making Process Leading to 

an Expert Opinion of Source 

Identification in Friction Ridge 

Examinations

Prepared by

Friction Ridge Subcommittee

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science

Version: 1.0

October 2017

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

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

Table of Contents

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

2. Scope ................................................................................................................................. 2

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

4. General Recommendations............................................................................................. 3

4.1. Discriminating and Persistent Nature of Friction Ridge Skin..................................... 3

4.2. Transfer of Friction Ridge Features to Impressions.................................................... 4

4.3. Analysis of Impression to Detect Discriminating Features for Comparison............... 4

4.4. Comparison of Features to Judge Correspondence ..................................................... 5

4.5. Accumulation of Correspondence ............................................................................... 5

4.6. Evaluation of the Observations Under Two Competing Propositions........................ 6

4.7. Source Identification Decision .................................................................................... 8

4.8. Communication of Findings........................................................................................ 8

5. Appendix A: Foundational Principles (Informative) ................................................... 9

6. Appendix B: Bibliography (Informative).................................................................... 11

7. Appendix C: Change Log.............................................................................................. 14
1

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

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 “Articulation document”, as it has come to be known by those drafting and debating 

it, originated in the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and 

Technology (SWGFAST) shortly after the release of the National Research Council’s 

(NRC) 2009 report, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path 

Forward.

1.3. The NRC report was critical of, among other things, the way friction ridge examiners 

expressed the results of their comparisons. The report particularly disapproved of 

examiners’ tendency to present those results as facts, rather than expert opinions, and to 

describe them in absolute terms such as “individualization”, “100% certain”, “exclusion 

of all others”, and “zero error rate” that the NRC and other critics noted overstated the 

strength of both the evidence and the foundational basis of the science to support it.

1.4. Very shortly after the release of the NRC report, the discipline responded with strong 

recommendations that these terms not be used in expressing friction ridge conclusions 

and that absolute certainty in conclusions should be neither expressed nor implied; 

however, they offered no guidance on what should be communicated instead.

1.5. SWGFAST undertook the writing of the Articulation document in an effort to fill that 

void. Its goal was to offer guidance on how a friction ridge examiner could describe the 

examination process and report the findings without overstating them and while 

operating within a logically consistent framework. SWGFAST completed two drafts of 

the Articulation document, which were put out for public comment. Before the 

document was finalized, SWGFAST was dissolved in favor of the newly formed 

Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC).

1.6. In 2015, the Friction Ridge Subcommittee (FRS) of the OSAC took up the legacy 

SWGFAST document and began the work of updating the references, clarifying some of 

the explanations, strengthening some of the recommendations and prohibitions, and 

putting the document through a full Standards Developing Organization (SDO) process, 

to result in a Best Practice Recommendations document that could be submitted to the 

OSAC Registry of Standards and Guidelines for adoption. The document you are 

reading is the result of that effort.

1.7. 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

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

2. Scope

2.1. This document offers guidance for articulating the decision-making process leading to 

the source identification conclusion resulting from the examination of friction ridge 

evidence. This document takes into consideration the current status of professional 

practices, legal decisions, and scientific research. 

2.2. The scope of this document is limited to the process leading to a source identification 

conclusion and does not address or consider other possible conclusions, such as 

inconclusive or exclusion decisions.

3. Terms and Definitions

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

3.1. Discriminability: The degree to which information in an impression can be used to 

reliably distinguish between impressions made by different sources. The discriminability 

of an impression encompasses its features’ quantity, spatial arrangement, clarity, and 

rarity.

3.2. Pattern force area: A region of friction ridge skin in which minutiae of a particular type 

are forced to form due to the flow of the ridges. For example, in the outflow of a loop, 

many ridges are converging, which necessarily forces many ridge endings as space runs 

out. Because the pattern forces these minutiae to form predictably and their 

configurations are more common and less random, they are properly assigned less 

weight than more randomly distributed minutiae toward an association between two 

impressions.

3.3. Rarity (of a feature type): Rarity of a type of feature of friction ridge skin refers to how 

frequently that type of feature is encountered in a group of people (its prevalence), either 

in isolation or in conjunction with other information about its local context. For instance, 

the prevalence of a type of feature could be affected by its proximity to a pattern force 

area, the finger number or palmar region on which it is located, or the pattern type in 

which it is located.

3.4. Strength of the evidence: A means of describing the weight of support the evidence 

lends to one source proposition over the other. The strength of the evidence is often 

represented as a Bayes Factor (also known as a likelihood ratio), and may be described 

verbally or numerically.

3.5. Tolerance: A means of expressing the variation that is allowable in two impressions 

originating from the same source due to the elasticity of the skin and differences in 

deposition and lateral pressure, twist, substrate, matrix, development medium, 

environmental factors, or post deposition damage. Two impressions within the expected 

variability are said to be “within tolerance” while two impressions that are outside are 

said to be “out of tolerance”.
3

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

4. General Recommendations

This document presents a series of statements, in sequence, that build upon one another. 

Together these provide a recommended explanation and articulation of the foundation and 

decision-making process for current friction ridge source identification practice. They are 

not meant to stand alone. An expanded section giving further explanation follows each 

statement. Supporting references are provided in each section, and practicing examiners 

should be aware of this material. The references cited are meant to be representative, not 

all-inclusive. An overview of these statements is included in Annex A.

4.1. Discriminating and Persistent Nature of Friction Ridge Skin

4.1.1. Statement: Friction ridge skin is a complex, highly discriminating, and persistent 

morphological structure.

4.1.2. Further explanation:

4.1.2.1. Research and practical application have shown that the combination of the 

details present in friction ridge skin are highly variable between different 

sources. Research and practice have also shown that, barring injury or 

disease, the essential structure and ridge arrangements of this detail remain 

unchanged (except for growth) over the life of an individual. These 

aspects of friction ridge skin (discriminability and persistence) help make 

friction ridge impressions an effective means of identification.

4.1.2.2. An entire complement of a particular anatomical source of friction ridge 

skin is highly discriminating. However, it is less certain at what point a 

subset of the skin’s features, imperfectly reproduced as an impression, are 

no longer discriminating enough to distinguish between similar sources. 

Furthermore, while research has demonstrated that some configurations of 

friction ridge details are highly discriminating, others, particularly in 

pattern force areas, are less so. Since impressions are often incomplete or 

indiscernible in part, their degree of discriminability must be considered at 

all stages of the examination.

4.1.2.3. While the highly discriminating nature of friction ridge skin is often 

expressed as “uniqueness”, this claim has not been empirically proven. 

Additionally, it has been suggested that the concept of uniqueness is 

neither a guarantee of an examiner’s ability to make an accurate source 

identification, nor a necessary precondition to reaching a reliable forensic 

conclusion.

4.1.3. References supporting statement and explanation:

4.1.3.1. Studies of discriminability, persistence, and morphology: Wilder and 

Wentworth (1932), Cummins and Midlo (1943), Hale (1952), Babler 
4

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

(1979), Maceo (2011), Wertheim (2011), Kücken and Champod (2013), 

Yoon and Jain (2015).

4.1.3.2. Historical use of friction ridge skin for personal identification: Barnes 

(2011).

4.1.3.3. Recent scientific studies of friction ridge discriminability: Neumann, 

Champod et al. (2007), Neumann, Evett et al. (2012).

4.1.3.4. Features in pattern force areas (e.g., deltas, outflows of a loop) tend to be 

more common: Champod and Margot (1997).

4.1.3.5. Uniqueness is unproven and unnecessary: Cole (2009), National Research 

Council (2009), Page et al. (2011).

4.2. Transfer of Friction Ridge Features to Impressions

4.2.1. Statement: An impression, or recording, of the features of friction ridge skin can 

result when contact is made with a receptive surface.

4.2.2. Further explanation:

4.2.2.1. Contact with a surface can result in an impression, or recording, of the 

friction ridge skin. The resulting impression is not a perfect recording of 

the skin, as it is subject to distortions and environmental effects. Each 

impression from the same area of friction ridge skin will reproduce a 

subset of that skin’s features that will vary in appearance from other 

impressions of the same source skin. This is true of both questioned and 

known impressions.

4.2.3. References supporting statement and explanation:

4.2.3.1. Ashbaugh (1999), Maceo (2009).

4.3. Analysis of Impression to Detect Discriminating Features for Comparison

4.3.1. Statement: During analysis of a friction ridge skin impression, an examiner 

detects features that would be expected to be present in another impression, 

generally a known exemplar, from the same area of friction ridge skin.

4.3.2. Further explanation: 

4.3.2.1. Examiners trained to competency have demonstrated an ability to 

accurately detect discriminating features such as ridge events, creases, and 

scars in friction ridge impressions. Their ability surpasses that of untrained 

novices. Examiners are capable of accurately detecting discriminating 
5

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

features even in highly distorted impressions. Examiner confidence in the 

reliability of observed features increases with their clarity in an 

impression. Before comparing two impressions, an examiner decides that 

both contain sufficient clear, discriminating features.

4.3.3. References supporting statement and explanation:

4.3.3.1. Busey and Parada (2010), Busey and Vanderkolk (2005), Hicklin et al. 

(2013), Langenburg (2012), Maceo (2009)

4.4. Comparison of Features to Judge Correspondence

4.4.1. Statement: The observed features are then compared between two impressions. 

An examiner considers whether there is correspondence within tolerance between 

these features or differences beyond tolerance.

4.4.2. Further explanation:

4.4.2.1. A ridge-to-ridge comparison between two side-by-side impressions 

determines whether or not there are corresponding features within 

tolerance. Correspondence is judged with respect to the features and their 

spatial relationships. Because every recording of friction ridge skin is 

different, the ground truth of whether a particular feature actually exists 

and its true appearance can only be known by examining the source skin. 

Thus, when comparing any two impressions, correspondence is not exact, 

but takes into account tolerances that are influenced by distortion factors 

and other environmental effects.

4.4.3. References supporting statement and explanation:

4.4.3.1. Ashbaugh (1999), Fagert and Morris (2015), Ulery et al. (2014)

4.5. Accumulation of Correspondence

4.5.1. Statement: As an examiner finds more corresponding features between two 

impressions, it becomes less likely that the corresponding set of features would 

also be present in an impression from a different source.

4.5.2. Further explanation:

4.5.2.1. As the number of corresponding features increases, the probability of 

observing these same features (due to random chance or coincidence) in a 

friction ridge skin impression from a different source decreases. With 

sufficient corresponding features, this probability becomes extremely low.
6

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

4.5.2.2. The quantity of corresponding features is important; however, so are their 

clarity and rarity. Not all features carry the same weight. Features that are 

clearer allow the examiner to have more confidence that they are accurate 

representations of the friction ridge skin. Features that are rarer allow the 

examiner to better discriminate between two sources.

4.5.2.3. Quantity, clarity, and rarity combined make up the discriminability of the 

impression. A more discriminating impression is less likely to have its 

features repeated in impressions made by different sources. The 

interpretation of the discriminability of the observed features is based 

upon an examiner’s training and experience.

4.5.3. References supporting statement and explanation:

4.5.3.1. Egli, Champod et al. (2007), Gutièrrez, Galera et al. (2007), Neumann, 

Champod et al. (2007), Neumann, Evett et al. (2012), Stoney and 

Thornton (1986)

4.6. Evaluation of the Observations Under Two Competing Propositions

4.6.1. Statement: An examiner considers, based upon knowledge and experience, the 

probability of encountering the observed corresponding features in two 

impressions made by the same source against the probability of observing the 

same correspondence between the unknown impression and an impression from a 

different source. In order to support the proposition that the two impressions were 

made by the same source, an examiner must find discriminability in the 

corresponding features to outweigh any support for the proposition that the two 

impressions were made by different sources. The degree to which support for a 

proposition of same source outweighs support for a proposition of different 

source is the strength of the evidence.

4.6.2. Further explanation:

4.6.2.1. Because no two recordings of friction ridge skin are identical to one 

another or to the source skin, comparisons of any two friction ridge skin 

impressions will exhibit differences. The examiner must determine 

whether or not the differences observed are normal variations within 

tolerance expected from multiple recordings of the same source skin. 

Differences beyond these normal variations give support to the proposition 

that the two impressions are from different sources.

4.6.2.2. A formal way to consider these two possibilities is by framing them as two 

competing propositions. One proposition is: the observed features in the 

questioned impression came from the same source as the known 

impression; the other proposition is: the observed features in the 

questioned impression came from a different source than the known 
7

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

impression. The extent of the correspondence of features (including both 

similarities and dissimilarities) between two impressions allows the 

examiner to evaluate the degree to which one would expect to observe 

these data under the same source proposition. The discriminability of the 

corresponding features in two impressions allows the examiner to evaluate 

the degree to which one would expect to observe these data under the 

different source proposition.

4.6.2.3. Discriminability allows the examiner to evaluate the degree of support for 

the different source proposition. The different source proposition 

considers the probability that the observed features would also be 

observed in an impression from a different source. If the corresponding 

features are highly discriminating, the probability that they would also be 

found in an impression from a different source is very low.

4.6.2.4. Examiners express an opinion regarding their evaluation of the evidence. 

This opinion is either offered as an expression of the strength of the 

evidence (thereby skipping section 4.7, below), or it is carried forward into 

a source identification decision (section 4.7).

4.6.2.4.1. NOTE: Historically, when the examiner has believed support for 

the proposition of same source has outweighed support for the 

proposition of different source to a high enough degree, the friction 

ridge examiner has offered a decision of source identification in 

reports and testimony. However, since the ultimate decision 

regarding source requires consideration of information in addition 

to the strength of the evidence itself, some of which has been 

argued to be task-irrelevant to the friction ridge examiner and more 

appropriately considered by the fact finder, the ultimate 

responsibility for making a decision regarding source lies with the 

fact finder. In recognition of this, some laboratories express the 

conclusion as an opinion of the weight of the evidence instead of a 

decision of source identification and some relevant authorities 

choose to limit the opinion of the friction ridge examiner to the 

strength of the evidence alone.

4.6.3. References supporting statement and explanation:

4.6.3.1. Two competing propositions are considered: Finkelstein and Fairley 

(1970), Aitken et al (2010), Neumann et al. (2012)

4.6.3.2. The strength of the evidence may be reported without making a source 

identification decision: Champod (2015), Cole (2009), Cole (2014), 

Swofford (2015)
8

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

4.6.3.3. Examiners should not rely on task-irrelevant information in their 

evaluation of evidence: National Commission on Forensic Science (2016)

4.7. Source Identification Decision

4.7.1. Statement: The examiner makes a decision to render a source identification 

conclusion.

4.7.2. Further explanation: 

4.7.2.1. Source identification is the opinion by an examiner that two friction ridge 

skin impressions originated from the same source. This opinion is the 

decision that the features are in sufficient correspondence and that the 

probability the questioned impression was made by a different source is so 

small that it is negligible.

4.7.3. References supporting statement and explanation:

4.7.3.1. Decision-making in forensic identification: Biedermann, Bozza et al. 

(2008)

4.8. Communication of Findings

4.8.1. Statement: The examiner shall communicate the findings in writing. These 

findings can be communicated again through oral testimony. The target 

audiences for these communications vary by agency or situation.

4.8.2. Further explanation:

4.8.2.1. Reported conclusions shall be expressed as the opinion of the examiner. 

The examiner has a level of personal confidence associated with the 

accuracy and reliability of this conclusion; however, this personal level of 

confidence cannot be objectively measured. For this reason, certainty shall 

not be reported in absolute terms and should not be reported numerically.

4.8.2.2. Specific words and phrases conveying absolute certainty are inappropriate 

or misleading and shall not be used, or implied, to express conclusions in 

an open population. Specific problematic phrases include:

4.8.2.2.1. Exclusion of all others: In order to reach an identification decision 

“to the exclusion of all others”, there would need to be an 

assumption of uniqueness, and the entire world’s population would 

need to be considered, and rejected, as a potential source of the 

unknown impression. These two claims are neither supportable, 

nor necessary, to form an opinion of source identification within a 

relevant population. Additionally, a “source exclusion” decision is 
9

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

made after comparing two impressions and finding sufficient 

differences to conclude that they were not made by the same 

source; therefore, unless a comparison has actually been 

conducted, no exclusion decision can be made.

4.8.2.2.2. Individualization: Use of the term “individualization” implies the 

global exclusion of all others. To individualize is to attribute a 

friction ridge skin impression to a single source. This 

determination de facto excludes all other possibilities. 

4.8.2.2.3. 100% certainty: The concept of 100% certainty is incompatible 

with the practice of science. Arguments such as “I would not have 

signed it unless I was 100% certain” are not sufficient support for a 

claim of 100% certainty.

4.8.2.2.4. Zero error rate / infallible method: A claim of a zero-error rate for 

the method is demonstrably false; errors have occurred. Because 

the friction ridge comparison process takes place within the mind 

of the examiner, there is no way to separate a method error rate 

from a practitioner error rate. Furthermore, as with 100% certainty, 

the concept of a zero-error rate is incompatible with the practice of 

science. 

4.8.3. References supporting statement and explanation:

4.8.3.1. Use of these phrases is inappropriate and unsupported: Campbell (2011), 

Champod (2013), Cole (2014), Garrett (2009), National Research Council 

(2009), NIST (2012).

4.8.3.2. When reaching a source identification decision, experienced friction ridge 

examiners tend to be highly accurate: Langenburg (2009), Ulery, Hicklin 

et al. (2011), Tangen, Thompson et al. (2011). 

5. Appendix A: Foundational Principles (Informative)

5.1. Shifting Emphasis in Friction Ridge Examination Decisions:

Rather than expressing a source identification as an incontrovertible fact, the friction 

ridge discipline is now articulating the source identification conclusion as a decision that 

is expressed as an expert opinion. This decision must derive from supporting data and 

only be reached after the two competing propositions of same source and different 

source have been assessed and considered.

As this approach to reporting conclusions represents a shift in the discipline from the 

traditional way of representing an identification, a gap was left in examiners’ 
10

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

understanding of how to articulate the decision-making process that leads to the 

decision, as well as the limits of the claims they are making when reporting on the 

strength of the evidence, or providing an opinion of source identification.

This document seeks to fill that gap by providing a structured framework that builds 

through the steps of the process using unified logic and terminology to culminate in one 

of two possible ways to report findings. It should be emphasized that this document does 

not represent a shift in how the comparison process is conducted; it is only a means of 

articulating that process and its results as pertains specifically to a strong association 

between a questioned and known impression, and in light of good scientific practice and 

valid concerns about some of the ways findings were presented in the past.

5.2. Overview of Statements:

To provide a summary of the structure of the document, and to serve as a quick reference 

to its sections, each of the progression of statements that are explained within the 

document are presented here, using the same numbering system under which they appear 

in the document body.

5.2.1. (Statement 4.1.1): Friction ridge skin is a complex, highly discriminating, and 

persistent morphological structure.

5.2.2. (Statement 4.2.1): An impression, or recording, of the features of friction ridge 

skin can result when contact is made with a receptive surface.

5.2.3. (Statement 4.3.1): During analysis of a friction ridge skin impression, an 

examiner detects features that would be expected to be present in another 

impression, generally a known exemplar, from the same area of friction ridge 

skin.

5.2.4. (Statement 4.4.1): The observed features are then compared between two 

impressions. An examiner considers whether there is correspondence within 

tolerance between these features or differences beyond tolerance.

5.2.5. (Statement 4.5.1): As an examiner finds more corresponding features between two 

impressions, it becomes less likely that the corresponding set of features would 

also be present in an impression from a different source.

5.2.6. (Statement 4.6.1): An examiner considers, based upon knowledge and experience, 

the probability of encountering the observed corresponding features in two 

impressions made by the same source against the probability of observing the 

same correspondence between the unknown impression and an impression from a 

different source. In order to support the proposition that the two impressions were 

made by the same source, an examiner must find discriminability in the 

corresponding features to outweigh any support for the proposition that the two 

impressions were made by different sources. The degree to which support for a 
11

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

proposition of same source outweighs support for a proposition of different 

source is the strength of the evidence.

5.2.7. (Statement 4.7.1): The examiner makes a decision to render a source 

identification conclusion.

5.2.8. (Statement 4.8.1): The examiner shall communicate the findings in writing. These 

findings can be communicated again through oral testimony. The target 

audiences for these communications vary by agency or situation.

6. Appendix B: Bibliography (Informative)

Aitken, C. Roberts, P., and Jackson, G. (2011). Fundamentals of Probaility and Statistical 

Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. Royal Statistical Society, London

Ashbaugh, D. R. (1999). Qualitative-quantitative friction ridge analysis – An introduction to 

basic and advanced ridgeology. Boca Raton, CRC Press.

Babler, W. J. (1979). Quantitative differences in morphogenesis of human epidermal ridges. 

Dermatoglyphics – Fifty Years Later. W. Wertelecki, C. C. Plato and N. W. Paul. New York, 

Alan R. Liss Inc. XV (N°6): 199-208.

Barnes, J. G. (2011). History. The fingerprint sourcebook. A. McRoberts. Washington, DC, 

U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Biedermann, A., S. Bozza, et al. (2008). "Decision theoretic properties of forensic 

identification: Underlying logic and argumentative implications." Forensic Science 

International 177(2-3): 120-132.

Busey, T. A. and F. J. Parada (2010). "The nature of expertise in fingerprint examiners." 

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17(2): 155-160.

Busey, T.A. and J.R. Vanderkolk (2005). “Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence for 

configural processing in fingerprint experts.” Vision Research 45(4): 431-448.

Campbell, Sir Anthony (2011). The Fingerprint inquiry report, APS Scotland.

Champod, C. (2013). Overview and meaning of identification/individualization. 

Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences. J.A. Siegel, and P.J. Saukko. Waltham: Academic Press. 

303-309.

Champod, C. (2015). “Fingerprint identification: advances since the 2009 National Research 

Council report.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370: 20140259.
12

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

Champod, C. and Margot, P. (1997). Analysis of Minutiæ Occurrences in Fingerprints – The 

Search for Non-Combined Minutiæ. In: Takatori T, Takasu A (eds) Current Topics in 

Forensic Science – Proceedings of the 14th Meeting of the International Association of 

Forensic Sciences, vol 1. Shunderson Communications, Ottawa, pp 55-58.

Cole, S. A. (2009). "Forensics without uniqueness, conclusions without individualization: the 

new epistemology of forensic identification." Law Probability and Risk 8(3): 233-255.

Cole, S. A. (2014). “Individualization is dead, long live individualization! Reforms of 

reporting practices for fingerprint analysis in the United States.” Law, Probability and Risk

13(2): 117-150.

Cummins, H. H. and C. Midlo (1943). Finger prints, palms and soles. Philadelphia, 

Blakiston.

Egli, N. M., C. Champod, et al. (2007). "Evidence evaluation in fingerprint comparison and 

automated fingerprint identification systems--Modelling within finger variability." Forensic 

Science International 167(2-3): 189-195.

Fagert, M. and Morris, K. (2015). “Quantifying the limits of fingerprint variability.” Forensic 

Science International 254: 87-99.

Finkelstein, M. O. and W. B. Fairley (1970). "A Bayesian approach to identification 

evidence." Harvard Law Review 83(3): 489-517.

Garrett, R. J. (2009). Memo to IAI members. Metuchen, NJ, The International Association 

for Identification.

Gutièrrez, E., V. Galera, et al. (2007). "Biological variability of the minutiae in the 

fingerprints of a sample of the Spanish population." Forensic Science International 172(2-3): 

98-105.

Hale, A. (1952). "Morphogenesis of volar skin in the human fetus." American Journal of 

Anatomy 91(1): 3-43.

Hicklin, R.A., et al. (2013). “Assessing the clarity of friction ridge impressions.” Forensic 

Science International 226(1-3): 106-117.

Kücken, M. and C. Champod (2013). “Merkel cells and the individuality of friction ridge 

skin.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 317 (C): 229-237.

Langenburg, G. (2009). "A performance study of the ACE-V process: A pilot study to 

measure the accuracy, precision, reproducibility, repeatability, and biasability of conclusions 

resulting from the ACE-V process." Journal of Forensic Identification 59(2): 219-257.
13

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

Langenburg, G. (2012). A critical analysis and review of the ACE-V process. Doctoral 

Dissertation, University of Lausanne, Switzerland.

Maceo, A. V. (2009). "Qualitative assessment of skin deformation: A pilot study." Journal of 

Forensic Identification 59(4): 390-440.

Maceo, A. V. (2011). Anatomy and physiology of adult friction ridge skin. The fingerprint 

sourcebook. A. McRoberts. Washington, DC, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice.

NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) and Expert Working Group on 

Human Factors in Latent Print Analysis (2012). Latent print examination and human factors: 

Improving the practice through a systems approach. M. Taylor and S. Ballou. Gaithersburg, 

MD.

National Commission on Forensic Science (2016). “Ensuring that forensic analysis is based 

upon task-relevant information”. 1-8. Available at: 

www.justice.gov/ncfs/file/818196/download.

National Research Council (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A 

path forward. Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press.

Neumann, C., C. Champod, et al. (2007). "Computation of likelihood ratios in fingerprint 

identification for configurations of any number of minutiae." Journal of Forensic Sciences

52(1): 54-64.

Neumann, C., I. W. Evett, et al. (2012). "Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic 

fingerprint comparison: a new paradigm." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A(175, 

Part 2): 371-415.

Page, M., Taylor, J., et al. (2011). “Uniqueness in the forensic identification sciences: Fact or 

fiction?” Forensic Science International 206(1-3): 12-18.

Stoney, D. A. and J. I. Thornton (1986). "A critical analysis of quantitative fingerprint 

individuality models." Journal of Forensic Sciences 31(4): 1187-1216.

Swofford, H. (2015). “The emerging paradigm shift in the epistemology of fingerprint 

conclusions.” Journal of Forensic Identification 65(3): 201-213.

Tangen, J. M., M. B. Thompson, et al. (2011). "Identifying fingerprint expertise." 

Psychological Science 22(8): 995-997.

Ulery, B. T., R. A. Hicklin, et al. (2011). "Accuracy and reliability of forensic latent 

fingerprint decisions." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(19): 7733-

7738.
14

Guideline for the Articulation of the Decision-Making Process Leading to an 

Expert Opinion of Source Identification in Friction Ridge Examinations

Ulery, B.T. R. A. Hicklin, et al. (2014). “Measuring what latent fingerprint examiners 

consider sufficient information for individualization determinations.” PLoS ONE 9(11): 

e110179-72.

Wertheim, K. (2011). Embryology and morphology of friction ridge skin. The fingerprint 

sourcebook. A. McRoberts. Washington, DC, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, National Institute of Justice.

Wilder, H. H. and B. Wentworth (1932). Personal identification – Methods for the 

identification of individuals living or dead. Chicago, The Fingerprint Publishing Association.

Yoon, S. and A.K. Jain (2015). “Longitudinal study of fingerprint recognition.” PNAS

112(28): 8555-8560.

7. Appendix C: Change Log

Version Date Change

1.0 10/16/2017 Original Issue