Document #9 Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, 

Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) in 

Tenprint Operations, Ver. 2.0

Date of First Issue 03/06/12 Current Issue Date 09/14/12

Web Posting Date

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review 09-2017 Appendix present/Letter Yes/A

1 of 10

Document #9

Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and 

Verification (ACE-V) in Tenprint Operations

(Tenprint)

1. Preamble

1.1. Many examinations conducted in a tenprint operational environment are documented using an 

automated process. When documentation for routine examinations is retained and retrievable from 

electronic logs, it is adequate for identity assurance purposes. At a minimum, all automated friction 

ridge examination documentation shall include the following:

1.1.1. Unique identifiers of the questioned print(s) and known print(s) used to reach the conclusion(s)

1.1.2. Unique identifiers of the examiner(s) (e.g., initials, signature, or equivalent electronic signature)

1.1.3. Date(s) of examination(s)

1.1.4. Results of examination(s)

1.2. Routine examinations conducted within a tenprint operational environment that are not sufficiently 

documented through an automated process shall be documented manually by the examiner. 

1.3. Examinations determined by an agency to be of a non-routine or complex nature require a greater 

degree of documentation of analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification (ACE-V). These 

examinations may include, but are not limited to:

1.3.1. Establishing identity for the purpose of testimony (e.g., sentence enhancements for prior 

convictions)

1.3.2. Single inked prints on items that are considered evidence or elements of an offense (e.g., 

forged or counterfeit checks, pawn shop tickets that relate to stolen property)

1.3.3. Friction ridge prints of an unknown deceased person

1.3.4. Friction ridge prints submitted to challenge the accuracy of an official government record

1.4. When friction ridge prints are examined using the ACE-V methodology, an examiner’s documentation 

shall be such that another competent examiner can determine what was done and interpret the data. 

Documentation shall be made at or near the time of the examination and may be in the form of 

annotated images, narratives, worksheets, annotated legible copies, sketches, electronic records, or 

any combination of these items. This documentation will be a part of the case record. A case record 

consists of the administrative and technical records, whether hard copy or electronic, pertaining to a 
Document #9 Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, 

Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) in 

Tenprint Operations, Ver. 2.0

Date of First Issue 03/06/12 Current Issue Date 09/14/12

Web Posting Date

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review 09-2017 Appendix present/Letter Yes/A

2 of 10

particular case. Although all examinations require documentation, the extent of the documentation shall 

reflect the complexity of the examination and circumstances surrounding the examination. The friction 

ridge impressions alone are not sufficient documentation. The impressions or legible copies shall be 

annotated or have accompanying transaction records.

2. Analysis

2.1. Questioned print of value

2.1.1. Analysis documentation of a questioned print of value shall be completed prior to comparison. 

The quality and quantity of the information present in the questioned print will dictate the extent 

of the documentation. At a minimum, the following shall be documented in the case record:

2.1.1.1. Submission method (e.g., AFIS, fingerprint card, check copy, facsimile)

2.1.1.2. Recording method (e.g., ink, livescan, chemical)

2.1.1.3. Anatomical orientation (e.g., distal direction)

2.1.1.4. Sequential orientation (e.g., multiple impressions)

2.1.1.5. Presence of Level 1 detail of prints used in comparisons

2.1.1.6. Presence of Level 2 detail of prints used in comparisons

2.1.1.7. Other friction ridge skin detail (e.g., creases, scars, mutilations)

2.1.2. When known, the following shall be documented within the case record:

2.1.2.1. Demographic information

2.1.2.2. Origin of submission (e.g., contributor, database retrieval)

2.1.3. The analysis of questioned print(s) should also include documentation of additional factors 

such as matrix, deposition pressure, lateral movement, rotational movement, Level 3 detail, or 

other friction ridge skin detail that may affect the comparison.

2.1.4. If the original questioned print(s) of value will not be maintained in the case record, a legible 

copy of the questioned print(s) shall be retained.

2.2. Questioned print(s) of no value

The presence of friction ridge impressions that are of no value shall be documented.

3. Comparison

3.1. Documentation shall include the information relied upon during the comparison. At a minimum, the 

following information shall be documented in the case record:

3.1.1. Unique identifier of the questioned prints(s) and known print(s) such as name, date of birth, 

assigned identification number, or reference to the specific questioned prints(s) and known 

print(s) (e.g., date of arrest, date of recording, submitting agency).

3.1.2. Anatomical source(s) represented in the questioned print(s) (i.e., fingerprint, palm print, or 

footprint).

3.2. A legible copy of the questioned print(s) and the known print(s) used in the comparison shall be 

retained in the case record.

3.3. Known print(s) that are deemed insufficient for comparison or that contain any factors that adversely 

affect the comparison shall be documented. The quality and quantity of the information present will 

dictate the extent of the documentation. These factors include:

3.3.1. Incomplete recording of the friction ridge skin
Document #9 Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, 

Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) in 

Tenprint Operations, Ver. 2.0

Date of First Issue 03/06/12 Current Issue Date 09/14/12

Web Posting Date

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review 09-2017 Appendix present/Letter Yes/A

3 of 10

3.3.2. Missing anatomical sources (e.g., areas of fingers and palms)

3.3.3. Unclear recording of the friction ridge skin

3.4. If re-analysis of the questioned print during the comparison results in new information, supplemental 

notes shall be added and dated.

4. Evaluation

4.1. The final conclusion of the comparison of each questioned print(s) and known print(s) shall be 

documented. Analysis documentation of a latent print of value shall be completed prior to comparison. 

4.2. Documentation of an individualization shall include:

4.2.1. Specific friction ridge impression examined

4.2.2. Unique identifier of the questions print(s) and known print(s) used to reach the conclusion

4.2.3. Specific anatomical source (e.g., right thumb and left palm)

4.2.4. Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier and electronic signature) of examiner

4.2.5. Date conclusion reached

4.3. Documentation of an exclusion shall include:

4.3.1. Specific friction ridge impression examined

4.3.2. Unique identifier of the questions print(s) and known print(s) used to reach the conclusion

4.3.3. Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier and electronic signature) of examiner

4.3.4. Date conclusion reached

4.4. Documentation of an inconclusive shall include:

4.4.1. Specific friction ridge impression examined

4.4.2. Unique identifier of the questions print(s) and known print(s) used to reach the conclusion

4.4.3. Specific anatomical source (e.g., right thumb and left palm)

4.4.4. Reason for inconclusive conclusion (e.g., better prints needed, specific anatomical sources 

needed, or insufficient friction ridge detail in agreement)

4.4.5. Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier and electronic signature) of examiner

4.4.6. Date conclusion reached

4.5. Conclusions shall be documented prior to verification.

5. Verification

5.1. Verification shall be documented and include:

5.1.1. Specific friction ridge impression(s) examined

5.1.2. Unique identifier of the questions print(s) and known print(s) used to reach the conclusion

5.1.3. Specific anatomical source (e.g., right thumb and left palm)

5.1.4. Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier and electronic signature) of verifying 

examiner

5.1.5. Date of verification
Document #9 Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, 

Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) in 

Tenprint Operations, Ver. 2.0

Date of First Issue 03/06/12 Current Issue Date 09/14/12

Web Posting Date

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review 09-2017 Appendix present/Letter Yes/A

4 of 10

6. Consultations

6.1. Consultations shall be documented and include:

6.1.1. Specific friction ridge impression(s) reviewed

6.1.2. Nature and result of consultation (e.g., reviewed individualization)

6.1.3. Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier and electronic signature) of examiner(s)

6.1.4. Date of consultation

7. Reference

[1] SWGFAST, Standard Terminology of Friction Ridge Examination, 2/11/11, ver. 3.

Appendix A

The worksheets below are examples of a form used for the documentation of ACE-V for examinations of 

questioned print(s) and known prints(s). Note, additional worksheets would be needed for additional 

examinations. In this example, the case record would also include the known print(s) or legible reproduction(s) 

that contain markings/notations indicating which impressions were compared.
Document #9 Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, 

Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) in 

Tenprint Operations, Ver. 2.0

Date of First Issue 03/06/12 Current Issue Date 09/14/12

Web Posting Date

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review 09-2017 Appendix present/Letter Yes/A

5 of 10

ACE-V DOCUMENTATION SHEET Example #1

ID #

Analysis must be consistent with SWGFAST terminology and definitions, and shall include, but not be limited to, 

the following elements:

ANALYSIS

MATRIX ☐ INK ☐ OTHER: (describe fully)

SUBSTRATE ☐ PAPER ☐ OTHER: (describe fully)

OVERLAY 

(describe fully)

PRESERVATION ☐ LIVE SCAN ☐ DIGITAL format____________ ☐ PDF ☐ OTHER: (describe fully)

ENVIRONMENT ☐ WET ☐ DRY ☐ PROTECTED ☐ OTHER: (describe fully) 

SKIN CONDITION (incl. scar, wart, etc. location):

DEPOSITION PRESSURE:

LEVEL 1: LEVEL 2: LEVEL 3/VISIBLE? ☐ YES ☐ NO

QUALITY ☐ HIGH ☐ MEDIUM HIGH ☐ MEDIUM 

LOW

☐ LOW

☐ COMPLEX IMPRESSION ☐ NON-COMPLEX 

IMPRESSION

AREA(S) OF SPECIFICITY:

DISTORTION – SLIPPAGE, TWISTING, RIDGE STRETCH, RIDGE COMPRESSION (describe fully):

☐ SUITABLE FOR 

COMPARISON

☐ OF VALUE FOR 

EXCLUSION ONLY

☐ SUITABLE FOR 

AFIS SEARCH

☐ NO VALUE FOR 

COMPARISON
Document #9 Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, 

Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) in 

Tenprint Operations, Ver. 2.0

Date of First Issue 03/06/12 Current Issue Date 09/14/12

Web Posting Date

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review 09-2017 Appendix present/Letter Yes/A

6 of 10

COMPARISON

LEVEL 1 AGREEMENT ☐ YES 

☐ NO

LEVEL 2 AGREEMENT ☐ YES ☐ NO LEVEL 3 AGREEMENT ☐ YES 

☐ NO ☐ N/A 

TARGET GROUP AGREEMENT ☐ YES ☐ NO AREA(S) OF SPECIFICITY AGREEMENT ☐ YES 

☐ NO

ADDITIONAL FEATURE 

AGREEMENT ☐ YES ☐ NO

DISAGREEMENT NOTED (IF APPLICABLE):

EVALUATION

SUFFICIENCY OF AGREEMENT FOR 

INDIVIDUALIZATION ☐ YES

SUFFICIENCY OF DISAGREEMENT FOR 

EXCLUSION ☐ YES

 INCONCLUSIVE CONCLUSION ☐ YES

☐ Lack of complete or legible known prints ☐

Insufficient features in agreement or disagreement

OBJECTIVE DATA ONLY USED ☐

YES ☐ NO

CUMULATIVE WEIGHT OF DATA SUPPORTS CONCLUSION ☐ YES 

☐ NO

CONCLUSION REPRODUCIBLE? (CONSENSUS AGREEMENT/OPEN TO SCRUTINY) ☐ YES ☐ NO 

ATTEMPT TO FALSIFY (FIND ALTERNATE CONCLUSION) ☐ YES ☐ NO (if yes describe process) 

PRIMARY EXAMINER DATE:

VERIFICATION EXAMINER DATE: 

TECHNICAL REVIEW: DATE:
Document #9 Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, 

Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) in 

Tenprint Operations, Ver. 2.0

Date of First Issue 03/06/12 Current Issue Date 09/14/12

Web Posting Date

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review 09-2017 Appendix present/Letter Yes/A

7 of 10

ACE-V DOCUMENTATION SHEET Example #2

ID #

Analysis must be consistent with SWGFAST terminology and definitions, and shall include, but not be limited to, 

the following elements:

ANALYSIS

LEVEL 1: LEVEL 2: LEVEL 3/VISIBLE? ☐ YES ☐

NO

QUALITY ☐ HIGH ☐ MEDIUM HIGH ☐ MEDIUM 

LOW

☐ LOW

☐ COMPLEX IMPRESSION ☐ NON-COMPLEX 

IMPRESSION

AREA(S) OF SPECIFICITY:

☐ SUITABLE FOR 

COMPARISON

☐ NO VALUE FOR 

COMPARISON

COMPARISON

LEVEL 1 AGREEMENT ☐

YES ☐ NO

LEVEL 2 AGREEMENT ☐ YES ☐

NO

LEVEL 3 AGREEMENT ☐ YES 

☐ NO ☐ N/A 

ADDITIONAL FEATURE 

AGREEMENT ☐ YES ☐ NO

EVALUATION

INDIVIDUALIZATION ☐ EXCLUSION ☐ INCONCLUSIVE ☐

PRIMARY EXAMINER: DATE:

VERIFICATION EXAMINER: DATE:

TECHNICAL REVIEW: DATE:
Document #9 Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, 

Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) in 

Tenprint Operations, Ver. 2.0

Date of First Issue 03/06/12 Current Issue Date 09/14/12

Web Posting Date

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review 09-2017 Appendix present/Letter Yes/A

8 of 10

ACE-V DOCUMENTATION SHEET Example #3

This example provides for the documentation of the analysis performed on both impressions to be compared to 

each other.

ID #

Analysis must be consistent with SWGFAST terminology and definitions, and shall include, but not be limited to, 

the following elements:

ANALYSIS

Questioned Print: ☐ Known Print: ☐ Questioned Print: ☐ Known Print: ☐

Name: DOB: Case ID: Name: DOB: Case ID:

QUALITY ☐

HIGH

☐ MEDIUM 

HIGH

☐ MEDIUM 

LOW

☐ LOW QUALITY ☐ HIGH ☐ MEDIUM 

HIGH

☐ MEDIUM 

LOW

☐

LOW

☐ COMPLEX IMPRESSION ☐ NON-COMPLEX ☐ COMPLEX IMPRESSION ☐ NON-COMPLEX 

Anatomical orientation: Anatomical orientation:

☐ SUITABLE FOR COMPARISON ☐ NO VALUE FOR

COMPARISON

☐ SUITABLE FOR COMPARISON ☐ NO VALUE 

FOR COMPARISON

Date of Arrest: Date of Recording: Date of Arrest: Date of Recording:

Submitting Agency: Submitting Agency:

Submission Method: Submission Method:

Recording Method: Recording Method:

☐ Fingerprint ☐ Palm print ☐ Footprint ☐ Fingerprint ☐ Palm print ☐

Footprint

COMPARISON

LEVEL 1 AGREEMENT ☐ YES ☐ NO LEVEL 2 AGREEMENT ☐ YES 

☐ NO

LEVEL 3 AGREEMENT ☐ YES ☐ NO 

☐ N/A 

Additional Details:
Document #9 Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, 

Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) in 

Tenprint Operations, Ver. 2.0

Date of First Issue 03/06/12 Current Issue Date 09/14/12

Web Posting Date

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review 09-2017 Appendix present/Letter Yes/A

9 of 10

EVALUATION

INDIVIDUALIZATION ☐ EXCLUSION ☐ INCONCLUSIVE ☐

Inconclusive comments:

Additional Documentation attached ☐

PRIMARY EXAMINER: DATE:

VERIFICATION EXAMINER: DATE:

TECHNICAL REVIEW: DATE:
Document #9 Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, 

Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V) in 

Tenprint Operations, Ver. 2.0

Date of First Issue 03/06/12 Current Issue Date 09/14/12

Web Posting Date

Date of Last Review N/A Date of Next Review 09-2017 Appendix present/Letter Yes/A

10 of 10

8. Revision Table

Version Effective Start Effective End Posted Archived Change

1.0 3/06/12 N/A 4/21/12 Original Issue

2.0 09/11/12 N/A N/A Clarification in preamble

Reformatted (start of new 

version number)