OSAC Friction Ridge Subcommittee 

Progress Update and Q&A

Henry Swofford, Josh Connelly, and Carey Hall

Executive Committee

Friction Ridge Subcommittee (FRS)

Organization for Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (OSAC)

IAI – Nashville, TN

August 4, 2021
Disclaimer

The opinions or assertions contained herein are 

the private views of the author and are not to 

be construed as official or as reflecting the 

views of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) or the Organization of 

Scientific Area Committees (OSAC).

2
OSAC and Standards Development 

3

• OSAC was established in 2014 to replace SWGs

• OSAC is administered by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST)

• OSAC is responsible for 

“facilitating the development and promoting the use of highquality, technically sound standards. These standards define 

minimum requirements, best practices, standard protocols and 

other guidance to help ensure that the results of forensic 

analysis are reliable and reproducible.” 
Forensic Science Standards Board 

(FSSB)

Seven Scientific Area Committees 

(SACs) 

22 Subcommittees (SCs)

FSSB Task Groups (these make up 

STRPs):

• Quality

• Statistics

• Human factors

• Legal

• Terminology

OSAC Structure

4
OSAC and Standards Development 

5

• The OSAC Registry is a repository of highquality, technically sound published and

proposed standards for forensic science.

• All the standards on this registry (published 

and proposed) have passed a rigorous 

technical and quality review by OSAC 

members, including forensic science 

practitioners, research scientists, statisticians 

and legal experts. 

• OSAC encourages the forensic science 

community to implement these published and 

proposed standards.
OSAC and Standards Development 

6
Subcommittee Leadership

Chair – Henry Swofford

 HJS Consulting, LLC

 Term expiration: Sept. 30, 2023

 Email: hswofford@hotmail.com

Vice-Chair – Josh Connelly

 Douglas County Sheriff’s Office

 Term expiration: Sept. 30, 2022

 Email: joshua.connelly@douglascounty-ne.gov

Executive Secretary – Carey Hall

 Minnesota BCA

 Term expiration: Sept. 30, 2022

 Email: carey.hall@state.mn.us

7
Subcommittee Breakdown

Category Current

Practitioner Total 13 65%

Federal 4 20%

State & Local 8 40%

Academia 4 20%

Private Sector (includes self-employed) 4 20%

8
Subcommittee Background

• Each SC no longer limited to 20 voting members

 Executive committee decided kept SC membership to 16 

voting members, 3 RC/FRS voting members, and 1 SC 

chair to align headcount with resources. 

• Can have an ‘unlimited’ number of affiliate 

members and increase, as needed.

• Affiliates are a great way to on-board for a 

particular topic and serve on a TG – they can’t vote 

but can provide extremely valuable insight and can 

turn into voting members at a later date

9
Documents Under Development

10

1. Automated Biometric Identification Systems Best Practices

2. Monitoring the proficiency of FSP personnel

3. Method Validation & Performance Checks

4. Limited Examinations

5. Feature Selection

6. Recruiting/Selection for Pattern Recognition

7. Processing/Development of Friction Ridge Impressions

8. Terminology related to friction ridge examination (standing)
Published Proposed Standards & BPRs

11

1. Standard for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions

2. Best Practice Recommendation for Analysis of Friction Ridge Impressions

3. Best Practice Recommendation for Comparison and Evaluation of Friction 

Ridge Impressions

4. Best Practice Recommendation for Testimony Monitoring

5. Best Practice Recommendation for Articulating a Source Identification in 

Friction Ridge Examination

6. Standard for Friction Ridge Examination Conclusions

7. Standard for Friction Ridge Examination Training Program

8. Best Practice Recommendations for Technical Review in Friction Ridge 

Identification

9. Best Practice Recommendations for the Resolution of Conflicts in the Course 

of Friction Ridge Examination

10. Best Practice Recommendations for the Verification Component in Friction 

Ridge Examination

11. Standard for Reporting Results from Friction Ridge Examinations

12. Standard for Consultation During Friction Ridge Examination
Published Proposed Standards & BPRs

12

All [Tier 3] documents listed below are completed work products of the OSAC Friction 

Ridge Subcommittee and have passed a rigorous technical and quality review by the 

subcommittee. The subcommittee encourages the forensic science community to 

implement these proposed standards.
13

1. Standard for Examining Friction Ridge Impressions

2. Best Practice Recommendation for Analysis of Friction Ridge Impressions

3. Best Practice Recommendation for Comparison and Evaluation of Friction 

Ridge Impressions

4. Best Practice Recommendation for Testimony Monitoring

5. Best Practice Recommendation for Articulating a Source Identification in 

Friction Ridge Examination

6. Standard for Friction Ridge Examination Conclusions

7. Standard for Friction Ridge Examination Training Program

8. Best Practice Recommendations for Technical Review in Friction Ridge 

Identification

9. Best Practice Recommendations for the Resolution of Conflicts in the Course 

of Friction Ridge Examination

10. Best Practice Recommendations for the Verification Component in Friction 

Ridge Examination

11. Standard for Reporting Results from Friction Ridge Examinations

12. Standard for Consultation During Friction Ridge Examination

Published Proposed Standards & BPRs
14

OSAC FRS Proposed Examination Trio
15

Defines minimum OSAC FRS Proposed Examination Trio

requirements for FSP 

policies & procedures 

(i.e., what shall be 

accounted for)
16

OSAC FRS Proposed Examination Trio

Defines 

recommendations for 

FSP policies & 

procedures (i.e., how 

it should be done)
OSAC FRS Proposed Std for Examination

The FSP shall . . . • Define features that may be used for 

examination

• Define criteria for utility decisions and source 

conclusions

• Define criteria for designating impressions as 

“complex”

• Document observed data (i.e., features + 

quality) necessary to support source 

conclusions.

• Routinely monitor examiners’ performance 

related to detection, documentation, and 

interpretation.

17
OSAC FRS Proposed BPR for Analysis

All Observed Data are 

definitive

Definitive ridge edges; 

debatable pores

Definitive minutiae; 

debatable ridge edges

Definitive ridge flow; 

debatable minutiae

Debatable ridge flow

Background

Category 5

Category 4

Category 3

Category 2

Category 1

Category 0

Criteria for Quality 

Designation*

*may be determined 

subjectively or through 

automated quality 

software

18
OSAC FRS Proposed BPR for Analysis

Criteria for Impression

Complexity Designation Non-Complex Impression:

• Greater than 15 minutiae designated as Category 3 

(green) quality or higher; or at least 12 minutiae 

designated as Category 4 (blue) quality or higher. • The observed data provides strong indication of the 

anatomical region and orientation

Low-Complexity Impression:

• Between 8 and 15 minutiae designated as Category 3 

(green) quality or higher; or between 5 and 12 

minutiae designated as Category 4 (blue) quality or 

higher. • The observed data does not provide a strong 

indication of the anatomical region and orientation

High-Complexity Impression:

• Fewer than 8 minutiae designated as Category 3 

(green) quality or higher; or fewer than 5 minutiae

designated as Category 4 (blue) quality or higher.

19
OSAC FRS Proposed BPR for Comparison & Evaluation

Criteria for Comparison

Complexity Designation Three Categories:

• Non-Complex Comparison

• Low-Complexity Comparison

• High-Complexity Comparison

Criteria accounts for:

• The complexity designation for each impression

• Whether the Observed Data provide strong indications 

of anatomical region

• Whether the Observed Data provide strong indications 

of orientation

• Whether the Observed Data in overlapping regions of 

impressions are designated as Category 3 (green) 

quality or higher

• Any differences in feature interpretations after 

exposure to the exemplar impression.

20
Criteria for Source 

Conclusions Source Identification:

• Observed Data in relevant areas of both impressions are 

present and designated as Category 2 (yellow) quality 

or higher during Analysis

• Observed Data between the impressions correspond

• The corresponding data include at least 8 minutiae 

designated as Category 3 (green) quality or higher and 

documented during Analysis.

Source Exclusion:

• Observed Data in relevant areas of both impressions are 

present and designated as Category 2 (yellow) quality 

or higher during Analysis

• Observed Data between the impressions do not 

correspond.

OSAC FRS Proposed BPR for Comparison & Evaluation

21
5 allowable (not required) conclusions

1. Source Exclusion is the conclusion that two friction ridge impressions did not 

originate from the same source.

2. Support for Different Sources is the conclusion that the observations provide 

more support for the proposition that the impressions originated from different 

sources rather than the same source; however, there is insufficient support for a 

Source Exclusion. The degree of support may range from limited to strong or similar 

descriptors of the degree of support. Any use of this conclusion shall include a 

statement of the degree of support and the factor(s) limiting a stronger conclusion.

3. Inconclusive / Lacking Support is the conclusion that the observations do not 

provide a sufficient degree of support for one proposition over the other. Any use of 

this conclusion shall include a statement of the factor(s) limiting a stronger 

conclusion.

4. Support for Same Source is the conclusion that the observations provide more 

support for the proposition that the impressions originated from the same source 

rather than different sources; however, there is insufficient support for a Source 

Identification. The degree of support may range from limited to strong or similar 

descriptors of the degree of support. Any use of this conclusion shall include a 

statement of the degree of support and the factor(s) limiting a stronger conclusion.

5. Source Identification is the strongest degree of association between two friction 

ridge impressions. It is the conclusion that the observations provide extremely 

strong support for the proposition that the impressions originated from the same 

source and extremely weak support for the proposition that the impressions 

originated from different sources.

OSAC FRS Proposed Std for Conclusions

22
Qualifications and Limitations

• An examiner shall not assert that a source identification is the 

conclusion that two impressions were made by the same 

source or imply an individualization to the exclusion of all other 

sources. • An examiner shall not suggest that the offered conclusion is an 

expression of absolute certainty. • An examiner shall not assert or imply that latent print 

examination is infallible or has a zero-error rate. • An examiner shall not cite the number of latent print 

comparisons performed in his or her career as a measure for 

the accuracy of a conclusion offered in the case at hand. • An examiner shall not use the expression ‘reasonable degree of 

scientific certainty’ or similar assertions as a description of the 

confidence held in his or her conclusion.

OSAC FRS Proposed Std for Conclusions

23
Technical information that shall be 

included in the written report: 

• Any deviation from FSP approved examination 

methodologies, policy and/or procedure.

• Statement describing that analysis was performed 

and all the resulting utility decisions of friction 

ridge impressions.

• A summary of the search results for ABIS 

searches conducted (Note: this is not intended to 

require or recommend the inclusion of all 

individual candidates generated as a result of a 

database search).

OSAC FRS Proposed Std for Reporting Results

24
The following information related to examination 

conclusions shall be included in the written report:

• Only comparisons which have been conducted shall be reported 

(i.e., a comparison must be completed to render a Source 

Exclusion or Support for Different Source conclusion). • All non-verified Source Identifications, Support for Same Source, 

and Source Exclusions included in the written report shall be 

clearly delineated. The limitations of the assessments shall be 

clearly indicated, as shall the process to have the conclusion 

verified. • Where an Inconclusive/Lacking Support conclusion is included, a 

statement detailing the reasons for this conclusion. • Statement when a reported conclusion was the result of a 

conflict resolution process or consensus review and FSP policy 

(e.g. FSP policy dictates the most conservative conclusion is 

reported out).

OSAC FRS Proposed Std for Reporting Results

25
https://www.nist.gov/osac/friction-ridge-subcommittee

Visit Us Online!

26
https://www.nist.gov/osac/friction-ridge-subcommittee

Visit Us Online!

27
• Provides monthly updates on 

forensic science standards 

moving through development 

process at SDOs and those 

moving through OSAC Registry 

process

• Available on OSAC’s website: 

https://www.nist.gov/topics/or

ganization-scientific-areacommittees-forensicscience/osac-standardsbulletin

• Quarterly communication that provides 

updates on OSAC’s program status, 

activities, accomplishments, and 

opportunities for public input with 

internal and external audiences. • Available on OSAC’s website: 

https://www.nist.gov/topics/organizatio

n-scientific-area-committees-forensicscience/osac-newsletter

• Follow us! 

https://www.linkedin.c

om/showcase/organiza

tion-of-scientific-areacommittees-osac-forforensic-science/

OSAC Communications

28
Sign up for OSAC 

communications Become an OSAC member

Review and 

comment on 

documents

Stay informed

https://www.nist.gov/topics/organizationscientific-area-committees-forensicscience/apply-join-osac

https://www.nist.gov/osac

https://service.govdelivery.c

om/accounts/USNIST/subscr

iber/new

How Can You Get Involved

29
Contact

Henry Swofford

Chair, Friction Ridge Subcommittee, OSAC

HJS Consulting, LLC

hswofford@hotmail.com

Josh Connelly

Vice-Chair, Friction Ridge Subcommittee, OSAC

Douglas County Sheriff’s Office

joshua.connelly@douglascounty-ne.gov

Carey Hall

Executive Secretary, Friction Ridge Subcommittee, OSAC

Minnesota BCA

carey.hall@state.mn.us

30