Description
Specify the object type, where and when it was discovered, what has already happened to it and what answer is needed.
Photographs
Photograph the overall appearance, details, packaging, markings and suspected trace areas without interfering with the object.
Samples
Describe comparison samples separately, including their source and the conditions in which they were obtained and stored.
Documents
Attach the order, ruling, previous opinion with appendices and provenance documents, where available.
Submission
You can send up to 10 files of 10 MB each, 15 MB in total, through the form. Do not send physical objects without agreement on packaging and acceptance.
Terms for submitting materials
What to prepare for a review of a materials comparison
The full course of the examination matters for a review. A single final statement about similarity does not allow verification of which particles were found, how they were compared and why that particular finding was formulated. Send the entire opinion with photographs, tables and appendices referred to by the practitioner.
It is useful to prepare a separate inventory: the object's identifier in the document, a description of the substrate or sample, the place of collection and the corresponding appendix. If one particle has different numbers in the protocol and photographic table, record both identifiers. This calls for verification of the connection between materials, rather than being a ready-made finding that the examination is unreliable.
Which parts of the opinion to highlight
- Where the discovery of the material is described and whether its original context has been preserved.
- Which features were examined and from which objects each result was obtained.
- Which samples were used for comparison and whether their provenance is known.
- Where the progression from observed similarities or differences to a finding on source or contact is explained.
- Which limitations are stated and whether they are taken into account in the final answer.
It is useful to link a comment to a specific page, table or photograph and to the finding it may affect. Lack of a detailed description of the method and an identified difference in features have different significance. The review must explain this distinction, rather than merely list formal shortcomings. If verification requires renewed access to the objects, a documentary assessment does not replace that examination or restore lost particles.