Start With the Evidence the Expert Actually Had
A report may cite conclusions without making clear what was actually examined. Did the expert review the native device, a forensic image, an extraction, a platform export, a screenshot, a PDF, a spreadsheet prepared by counsel, or a prior report? Those differences control what the opinion can support.
PowellPath reviews the report against the source record. If the opinion depends on a missing device, unverified export, unsupported screenshot, incomplete metadata set, or unexplained chain of custody, that problem should be identified precisely.
Issues Commonly Found
- Conclusions stronger than the source data permits.
- Failure to distinguish native evidence from screenshots, reports, or exports.
- Timestamp interpretation without time-zone, source, or system context.
- Tool output repeated without validation or artifact explanation.
- Missing chain-of-custody, acquisition, hash, or preservation details.
- Ignored alternative explanations, missing data, or known platform limits.
The Review Should Produce Usable Litigation Points
A useful report critique does not merely say the opposing expert is wrong. It identifies deposition questions, missing source requests, admissibility issues, rebuttal topics, demonstrative needs, and places where the opinion should be narrowed. It should help counsel decide whether the issue belongs in a motion, cross-examination, rebuttal report, or discovery letter.
What Counsel Receives
Deliverables may include an expert-report critique, source-gap table, methodology issue list, cross-examination outline, rebuttal-support memo, or technical exhibit notes. The review is written for attorneys who need to challenge weak digital forensic opinions without overclaiming their own position.