Best Practice 

Recommendation for 

Technical Review 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 Technical Review in 

Friction Ridge Examination

OSAC Proposed BPR

Best Practice Recommendation for 

Technical Review 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 Technical Review in 

Friction Ridge Examination

Table of Contents

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

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

3. Terms and Definitions..................................................................................................... 1

4. General Recommendations............................................................................................. 2

5. Appendix A: Sample Technical Review Checklist........................................................ 3

6. Appendix B: Sample Testimony Review Form............................................................. 4

7. Appendix C: Sample Testimony and Technical Review Form.................................... 6

8. Appendix D: Sample Non-Conformity Assessment Form ........................................... 7

9. Appendix E: Change Log................................................................................................ 8
1

Best Practice Recommendation for Technical Review 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. It is essential that friction ridge examiners provide a sound basis for each conclusion 

drawn. Technical review of an examiner’s work product by another competent examiner 

is a proactive measure to determine if this basis exists. This document provides several 

recommendations to guide the technical review process. 

1.3. 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 perform the 

technical review of friction ridge impression examinations. Examples are also provided.

2.2. This document does not address administrative review or verification.

3. Terms and Definitions

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

3.1. Competency: Possessing and demonstrating the requisite knowledge, skills and abilities 

to successfully perform a specific task.

3.2. Examiner (Friction Ridge)/Competent Friction Ridge Examiner: An individual who has 

successfully completed their FSP’s training program and has demonstrated to the FSP 

that they possess the knowledge, skills and abilities to perform the tasks required of their 

current position. An individual authorized to conduct friction ridge examinations for the 

FSP by observing and interpreting data, making decisions, forming conclusions and 

opinions, issuing reports and/or providing testimony.

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

practitioner providing forensic science services.

3.4. Nonconforming work: Work that does not comply with FSP policies and procedures.

3.5. Quality assurance measures: Steps taken by an FSP to detect and correct nonconforming 

work. This may include, but is not limited to, root cause analysis, additional verification, 

non-conformity assessment, audits and corrective and/or preventative actions.
2

Best Practice Recommendation for Technical Review in 

Friction Ridge Examination

3.6. 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.

3.7. 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 Recommendations

4.1. Technical review of the case record or testimony shall be conducted by a competent 

friction ridge examiner as defined above. 

4.2. Technical review of the case record may be conducted concurrently with verification.

4.3. From a quality assurance perspective, technical review of the case record should occur in 

every case. For testimony, technical review should be conducted at least once annually 

for each examiner. FSPs shall have a written policy defining what is required in 

technical review. 

4.4. Technical review shall be documented in the case record. As an example, the 

requirements for technical review could be satisfied by completing a checklist. (Annex A 

is for casework; Annexes B and C are for testimony)

4.5. The FSP shall have a policy to address nonconforming work.

4.6. Nonconforming work shall be documented in the case record. Refer to Annex D for a 

sample nonconformity assessment form.
3

Best Practice Recommendation for Technical Review in 

Friction Ridge Examination

5. Appendix A: Sample Technical Review Checklist

Technical Review Checklist

The presence of items on this checklist does not imply that they are required. Each agency may create a 

checklist that addresses its own policies and procedures.

YES NO N/A NOTES

❑ ❑ ❑ Are the notes legible and proper?

❑ ❑ ❑ Do the notes indicate that a proper inventory was conducted and completely documented?

❑ ❑ ❑ Are the notes organized, neat and understandable?

❑ ❑ ❑ Are the notes pages consecutively numbered?

YES NO N/A EXAMINATION OF FRICTION RIDGE IMPRESSIONS

❑ ❑ ❑ Have the examinations been performed according to OSAC Standard for Examining Friction 

Ridge Impressions?

❑ ❑ ❑ Have the components of best practice recommendations for ACE been met?

❑ ❑ ❑ Have the components of best practice recommendations for verification been met?

If the verification was blind, was the verifier shielded from the case examiner’s conclusion?

❑ ❑ ❑ Were conclusion(s) selected from the OSAC Standard for FR Examination Conclusions 

document?

❑ ❑ ❑ Are the conclusion(s) appropriate based upon the data?

YES NO N/A SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

❑ ❑ ❑ Are all images, printouts and screenshots used to support conclusions in the case file?

❑ ❑ ❑ Has all relevant digital evidence been accounted for?

❑ ❑ ❑ Are all images, printouts and screenshots properly labeled?

❑ ❑ ❑ Have observed details/characteristics been annotated (e.g. GYRO) where appropriate?

❑ ❑ ❑ If consultation occurred, has it been clearly documented?

❑ ❑ ❑ If conflict resolution occurred, has it been clearly documented?

YES NO N/A EXAMINATION REPORT

❑ ❑ ❑ Is the report format and wording, including any limitations of conclusions, in accordance with 

OSAC Standard for Friction Ridge Examination Reports protocol?

❑ ❑ ❑ Have the requested examinations been addressed?

❑ ❑ ❑ Are the results properly transcribed and clearly communicated to the reader?

❑ ❑ ❑ Have appropriate additional samples/standards/exemplars been requested, if needed?

❑ ❑ ❑ Has the evidence submission been inventoried and its disposition included?

NOTES/REMARKS

INSTRUCTIONS: The examiner and reviewer must explain all "NO" responses that were not corrected.
4

Best Practice Recommendation for Technical Review in 

Friction Ridge Examination

6. Appendix B: Sample Testimony Review Form

Witness Evaluation Form

The purpose of this questionnaire is to provide information that will help FSSP staff present more 

effective court testimony. An honest, constructive evaluation of court room performance is 

encouraged.

Name of Witness:_________________ Court:______________________________

Matter of:_______________________ Docket/Case Number:__________________

Date of Testimony:________________

Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor

Personal

Impressions

Voice (volume, tone, fluency)

Eye contact

Demeanor

Dress

Court Etiquette

Credibility

Testimony

Confident

Responsiveness to questions

Well prepared

Conveyance of limitations of opinion

Clear and Concise

Accurate and Objective

Fair and Impartial

Technical competence*

*Did you understand (and do you believe the jury understood if applicable) the technical fingerprint evidence given by the witness?
5

Best Practice Recommendation for Technical Review in 

Friction Ridge Examination

Evidence Given:

Type of Evidence Approx. Time Comments

Direct examination

Cross examination

Re-direct examination

Other Comments/Suggestions:

Assessed by:___________________________________ Position/Title:_________________________________

Signed:_______________________________________ Date:________________________________________

Survey Receiving Supervisor: _____________________ Received on: __________________________________

Assessee Acknowledgement: ______________________ Reviewed on: _________________________________
6

Best Practice Recommendation for Technical Review in 

Friction Ridge Examination

7. Appendix C: Sample Testimony and Technical Review Form

Testimony Technical Review Form

Analyst: Date of Testimony:

Discipline: Laboratory Control #:

Technical Reviewer: Date case records were reviewed:

Judge or Courtroom #:

Sub-disciplines/ types or methods of analysis or inspection that was testified to:

Did the analyst have a professional demeanor and appearance? Yes No 

Comments:

Was the analyst well prepared for their testimony? Yes No 

Comments:

Did the analyst accurately describe their qualifications and duties? Yes No 

Comments:

Did the analyst accurately present the evidence? Yes No 

Comments:

Were the results, opinions, and/or facts presented accurately? Yes No 

Comments:

Was the testing or inspection methods accurately explained? Yes No 

Comments:

Was it clearly indicated when information presented was interpretation or opinion 

and any relevant limitations?

Yes No 

Comments:

Was there any information conveyed that was not accurate? Yes No 

If yes, did the inaccuracy fundamentally impact the perception of the information 

that was presented? Yes No 

Comments:

Are there any indications of Nonconformance? Yes No 

If yes, Nonconformance workflow ID #

Technical Reviewer: Date:

Quality Assurance Manager: Date:

Analyst: Date:
7

Best Practice Recommendation for Technical Review in 

Friction Ridge Examination

8. Appendix D: Sample Non-Conformity Assessment Form

Non-Conformity Assessment Form

Name of Examiner Involved:____________________________ Date:_________________

FSP Case Number:______________________ Agency Case Number:___________________

Name of Reviewer:____________________________________________________________

Non-Conformity:

□ Incomplete Documentation □ Clerical Error □ Erroneous EXC □ Erroneous ID

□ Inaccurate Testimony □ Failure to correct inaccurate testimony

Reviewer Comments: ________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Suggested Action (Reviewer): ________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Root-cause analysis: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Corrective/preventive action:

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Supervisor / Director:

Assessed by: _____________________________ Position/Title: _____________________________________

Supervisor/ Director Determined Action: _____________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Signed: _______________________________________ Date: ______________ CPA No: _______

Involved Examiner Acknowledgement: ________________________________________ Date: _______________

Involved Examiner Comments:_____________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________
8

Best Practice Recommendation for Technical Review in 

Friction Ridge Examination

9. Appendix E: Change Log

Version Date Change

1.0 9/5/2019 Original Issue