40 – Documents 

receive d and 

verified by the 

examiner

–

• Approval received?

• Question appropriate?

• Analysis timeframe 

appropriate?

• Technically feasible?

10 – Formal 

request 

receive d?

Y

N

To 

170 0

30 – Chain of 

custody 

documentation

pe r laboratory 

policy

CASE ACCEPTANCE

160 – 

Conduct 

processing

100 – Separate 

Q writing from 

K writing, if 

available 

140 –

Does the Q contain 

sufficient clarity 

and detail?

130 – Reque st 

and obtain 

original Q, if 

available

120 –

Does the Q 

contain original 

handwriting?

150 – Would 

processing 

enhance the clarity 

and detail?

N

Y

N

110 – Consider 

separating Q by 

writing style 

(cursive, hand 

printing, signatures, 

etc. )

To

132 0

N

170 –

Are you familiar 

with the 

character set 

used?

210 –

Does the Q 

writing appe ar to be of a 

sufficient amount and 

complexity for 

comparison?

Y

N

180 – Would 

consultation/

research assist?

190 – Get 

consultation/

conduct 

research

Y

200 –

Can you 

continue?

Y

Y

N

N

N

220 –

Pre-analysis complete 

for all Q writing 

samples?

230 – Complete 

pre-analysis for 

remaining Q 

writing

To

120

N

To

132 0

To

132 0

Y Y

QUESTIONED WRITING PRE-ANALYSIS

370 – Group/ order 

Q samples 

380 – Consider 

possible explanations 

for observations in Q 

including the 

possibility of multiple 

writers

360 – Would 

grouping or ordering the 

Q samples (by date, document 

type, handwriting 

characteristics, 

etc. ) be helpful?

N

Y

410 –

Notify reque stor; 

Wait for K writing 

samples

350 –

Are there multiple Q 

writing samples?

N

Y

390 –

Was the examination 

request Q to K?

400 –

Do you have K 

writings?

Y

To

100 0

N

N

To

Y 500

420 –

K sample s 

receive d?

To

132 0

N

Y

For each Q 

writing sample, 

consider and 

make 

observations 

about

300 –

Characteristics 

present in Q 

writing 

310 –

Leve l of 

complexity

320 –

Type of 

document 

(che ck, rece ipt, 

will, etc.)

330 –

Writing 

instrument(s) 

used

340 –

Writing 

appearance 

(e.g., natural or 

distorte d)

QUESTIONED WRITING ANALYSIS

550 –

Does the K writing 

sample contain 

sufficient clarity and 

de tail?

N

610 – 

Does there 

appear to be 

enough comparable K 

writing in

this 

sample 

set?

620 –

Reque st and 

obtain 

additional K 

writer 

samples, if 

available

Y

530 – Does the 

K writing sample 

contain original 

handwriting?

N

Y

N

560 –

Would processing

enhance the clarity 

and detail?

580 –

Conduct 

processing 

to enhance 

clarity and 

de tail , as 

ne cessary

Y

500 – We re 

samples from 

multiple K writers 

submitted?

570 –

Exclude item from 

K writer sample 

set

510 –

Group sample s by K 

writer as specified 

by submitter

590 –

Processing 

complete for all 

K writer 

documents?

N

To

520

Y

600 –

Combine all 

samples for each 

K writer

Y

540 –

Reque st and obtain 

original document, 

if available

N

To 

550

Y

520 –

Select single writing 

sample from K write r 

set for pre-analysis 

steps

630 –

Can I continue 

with this K writer 

set?

Y

N

To

132 0

640 –

Document 

discontinuation 

of exam for K 

writer and 

select new K 

writer set

To

590

N

650 –

K writer sets preanalysis 

complete?

660 –

Complete preanalysis ste ps for 

each K writer

N

KNOWN WRITING PRE-ANALYSIS PER WRITER

Consider and 

make 

observations 

about

700 -

Characteristics 

present in K 

writing

710 -

Leve l of 

complexity

720 -

Writing 

instrument(s) 

used

730 -

Type of docume nt

740 - Consider 

whether K is 

contemporaneous 

with Q

750 -

Writing 

appearance (e.g. , 

natural or 

distorte d)

910 –

Does the K writing 

sample se t appear to be 

of a sufficient amount 

and comple xity for 

comparison?

890 –

Assess the range of 

variation of the K 

writing

Y

900 –

Consider possible 

explanations for 

observations in K 

writing

880 –

If helpful, group 

or order the K 

writer samples by 

observed 

characteristics

(writing styles, 

dates, etc.)

980 –

Complete steps for 

all K write rs

760 –

Is the K writer se t 

internally consistent?

(Does each set of writing 

appear to be from 

one write r?)

780 –

Seek clarification 

from submitter?

Y

770 –

Can inconsistencie s be 

resolve d or reasoned by 

the examiner?

N

Y

870 –

Document rationale for 

retaining or e xcluding 

inconsistent writing, as 

appropriate

N

860 –

Submitter provide s 

rationale or 

reasoning?

Y

Y

790 –

Can you continue with 

this K writer set?

To

870

N

Y

820 –

Additional K writers 

to assess?

To

700

840 –

Select new K write r 

set or continue with 

analysis of other 

usable K writer 

samples

800 – Reque st 

additional samples 

from K writer?

N

850 –

Reque st and obtain 

additional K writer 

samples, if available

Y

To

530

N

N

Y

810 – Document 

rationale for 

discontinuing 

examination of this K 

writer

To

132 0

N

N

940 –

Additional K writers 

to analyze ?

To

700

960 –

Select new K write r 

set

920 –

Reque st additional 

samples from K 

writer?

N

970 –

Reque st and obtain 

additional K writer 

samples, if available

Y

To

530

Y

930 –

Document rationale for 

discontinuation of e xam 

on this K writer

To

132 0

990 –

Select K writer 

to compare with 

Q writing

To

100 0

N

950 –

Continue 

examination with 

other K writers?

To

830 – Continue Y 100 0

examination with

other K writers?

N

To Y 100 0

KNOWN WRITING ANALYSIS

N

100 0 –

Compare observed 

characteristics 

101 0 –

Classify and 

document 

characteristics as 

dissimilar, similar, 

or absent 

110 0 –

Evaluate the combination 

of characteristics, both 

similarities and 

dissimilarities, to 

de termine the value or 

significance of those 

features

130 0 –

Identifica ti on

131 0 –

Probably did write

132 0 –

Inconclusi ve /No Conclusion

(regarding writership)

133 0 –

Probably did not w rite

134 0 –

Elimina ti on

112 0 – Does the 

compared writing 

contain a sufficient 

amount of habitual, distinctive 

features characteristic 

of the writer?

N

116 0 –

Is the compared 

writing free of significant 

unexplainable 

dissimilarities or 

diffe re nce s? 

113 0 –

 Contains no evidence 

of manipulation? (cut and 

paste e ntries, 

identical copies, 

etc. )

N

Previous Decisions:

• The compared writing is:

✓ Of sufficient clarity and detail 

✓ In a character set with which the examiner is comfortable 

✓ Of sufficient amount and complexity for comparison

✓ Actually comparable (i.e. comprised of the same 

allographs)

✓ Internally consistent

• Knowledge, skills, and experience in understanding the 

variation of features in the relevant population

Note: Anything else would have been eliminated during the 

pre-analysis and analysis phases.

118 0 –

Is the re a combination

of significant distinctive 

characteristics shared among 

compared 

writing?

120 0 –

Are there significant 

limitations?

119 0 –

Are there limitations 

associated with complexity 

and/or quantity of compared 

writing that would lead to 

you qualifying your 

conclusion?

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

121 0 –

Is the re a significant 

combination of dissimilar 

characteristics and 

diffe re nce s?

122 0 –

Are there limitations 

that would lead to you 

qualifying your 

conclusion?

N

Y Y

N

Y Y

111 0 –

Consider the possible causes 

of similarities (random match, 

common write r, skilled 

simulation) and dissimilarities 

(natural variation, 

contemporaneity, internal/

external factors, accide ntals, 

disguise, simulation)

114 0 –

Can you still 

continue with your 

examination?

115 0 –

Document evide nce 

of manipulation

117 0 –

Are there sufficient 

similarities to associate 

the compared 

writing?

N

123 0 –

Are there similarities that 

counte rbalance the 

dissimilarities?

Y

124 0 –

Are there significant 

limitations?

Y

N

N

EVALUATION

156 0 –

Conse nsus conclusion 

reached?

157 0 –

Resolve conflicts

pe r agency conflict 

resolution policy

150 0 –

Are you going to have 

conclusions reviewed?

(according to agency 

policy)

151 0 –

Conduct blind 

review?

153 0 –

Conduct fully 

blinded?

N

155 0 –

Conduct 

independent 

analysis

(assigned 

reviewer 

be gins at 100)

152 0 –

Conduct 

technical 

review

160 0 –

Conduct 

administrative 

review

and amend as 

ne cessary 

Y Y Y

N

N

Y

158 0 –

Does the report 

ne ed to be 

amended?

154 0 –

Share limited 

case data (per 

agency policy)

N

159 0 –

Revise report 

based on 

consensus review

Y

N

Notify reque stor 

and transmit report, 

where appropriate 

Terminate examination

170 0

140 0 –

Document opinion or 

conclusions

and any relevant 

limitations

142 0 –

Draft preliminary 

report

141 0 –

Are all case 

questions 

answered?

N

To 

100 0

Y

CASE REVIEW/FINALIZE REPORT

INTER-COMPARISON OF Q SAMPLES

OR

COMPARISON OF SAMPLES FROM ONE K WRITER TO Q SAMPLES

START

Y

To 

“Known 

Writing 

Analysis”

N

Y

N

Y

To 

520

N

Disclaimer: This diagram documents the steps of the examination process as 

currently practiced by the handwriting examination community in the U.S. The 

numbers in each of the boxes correspond to “steps” that are more fully 

described in the report. The purpose of this process map is to facilitate 

discussion about key decision points in the handwriting examination process.

Disclaimer: This diagram documents the steps of the examination process as 

currently practiced by the handwriting examination community in the U.S. The 

numbers in each of the boxes correspond to “steps” that are more fully 

described in the report. The purpose of this process map is to facilitate 

discussion about key decision points in the handwriting examination process.

To 

140 0