Examination of an expert report by a specialist

Expert report review is a type of examination of an existing expert report. In this format, the work addresses specific questions of specialist knowledge: competence, sufficiency of source materials, methods, completeness of analysis, logic of reasoning and substantiation of conclusions.

The written result of the review is documented as a specialist opinion containing answers to the questions posed. The purpose is to examine the extent to which the described examination process allows the derivation of conclusions to be understood and checked, rather than merely disagree with the expert or provide a legal assessment of the evidence.

What is checked

  • Competence: whether the questions posed correspond to the field of specialist knowledge and the expert's training;
  • Proper formulation of questions: whether any questions require legal classification, an assessment of guilt or other conclusions outside specialist knowledge;
  • Objects and source data: whether the necessary volume of materials was examined and significant context retained;
  • Integrity of the object: whether conclusions are based on isolated fragments without considering the preceding and subsequent content;
  • Methodological framework: whether the approaches, criteria and sequence of actions used are described;
  • Completeness of analysis: whether alternative interpretations and relevant elements of the object were considered;
  • Logic: whether the chain “material → method → established feature → interpretation → conclusion” can be traced;
  • Interdisciplinary aspects: whether any questions required knowledge from another discipline or interdisciplinary examination;
  • Limits of competence: whether specialist knowledge has been replaced by legal classification or an assessment of guilt.

Sample questions when examining a report

Competence and formulation of questions

  • Do the expert's education, training and stated discipline match the nature of the questions they resolved?
  • Do all questions put to the expert fall within specialist knowledge?
  • Do any resolved questions involve legal classification or assessment of circumstances within the competence of a court or another authority responsible for applying the law?
  • Did any questions require specialists from another field or an interdisciplinary examination?
  • Does an interdisciplinary report distinguish each expert's competence and contribution?
  • Have all questions put to the expert received substantive and unambiguous answers in the report's conclusions?
  • Does the report explain the specialist terms, features and assessment criteria sufficiently for the examination process to be understood?

Materials, object and context

  • Is the volume of materials submitted to the expert sufficient to resolve the questions posed?
  • Are the materials submitted to the expert sufficient, and the objects of examination appropriate for the conclusions drawn?
  • Was the object examined in full, or are the conclusions based on isolated fragments?
  • Were the original textual, semantic and temporal boundaries of the material examined preserved?
  • Was the context immediately preceding and following the disputed fragment considered?
  • Was the disputed material's relationship to other publications, messages, audio, video or visual objects examined where relevant to answering the question?
  • Could excluding part of the submitted material affect interpretation of the fragment examined?

Methods and reproducibility

  • Which methods and methodological approaches did the expert actually use?
  • Are the methods used appropriate for the object, subject and questions posed?
  • Is the sequence of examination actions described sufficiently to trace the derivation of significant conclusions?
  • Are the features and criteria on which the expert based interim and final conclusions defined?
  • Were the stated methods actually used, or merely listed in the introductory or methodology section?
  • Does the report allow the logical link between the source material, detected features and answers to the questions to be checked?

Interpretation and logic of conclusions

  • Does each significant conclusion follow from the described examination section?
  • Does the report distinguish directly established features of the material from their subsequent expert interpretation?
  • Does the report contain ambiguities, incompleteness or internal contradictions requiring further specialist explanation or additional examination?
  • Are there conclusions without sufficient factual or methodological substantiation in the examination section?
  • Were scientifically admissible alternative interpretations of the disputed material considered?
  • If an alternative interpretation was excluded, are the grounds for its exclusion given?
  • Has an ambiguous or probabilistic result been presented as an unconditional categorical conclusion?
  • Are the author's own position, quotation, presentation of a third party's position, irony, sarcasm, metaphor and other context-dependent forms of expression distinguished where relevant to the examination?

Political science component

  • Are the political science categories used in the report and the criteria for applying them defined?
  • On which features was the material or activity classified as political, ideological, social or belonging to another sphere?
  • Are political activity, civic engagement, social activity and other forms of public behaviour distinguished?
  • Is assigning the content to a particular ideological system, movement or political context substantiated?
  • Was a political or ideological motive inferred solely from isolated words, symbols or fragments without analysing the materials as a whole?
  • Are holding particular political views, expressing them publicly and organisational activity distinguished?
Questions outside the reviewer's task as a specialist: whether the report is admissible or reliable evidence; whether a particular person is guilty; whether the elements of a crime or offence are present; whether a party's actions are lawful; and what the final legal classification should be. Such conclusions constitute legal assessment.

What it is advisable to provide

  • the full expert report;
  • the questions put to the expert;
  • a list of the objects and materials examined;
  • where possible, the texts, publications, images, audio or video examined;
  • relevant procedural documents, if needed to understand the assignment.

Result

Following the review, the document prepared is a specialist opinion answering specific questions of specialist knowledge. It systematically analyses the methodological, logical and competence-related aspects of the original expert examination. The term “review” is used as a clear description of the type of work, rather than a written deliverable separate from a specialist opinion. The specialist opinion does not replace the court's assessment of evidence and does not in itself guarantee appointment of an additional or repeat examination.

How to prepare materials for the work →

Pricing

from RUB 70 000. The exact price depends on the length of the original report, the quantity of materials examined and the number of conclusions to be checked.