Reporting, Documentation, and Expert Testimony
This domain tests whether you can turn technical work into defensible documentation and testimony. Expect report structure, opinion limits, exhibits, and admissibility standards.
Core rules
A forensic report should state scope, authority, methodology, evidence received, chain of custody, tools and versions, findings, limitations, and conclusions. Separate factual observations from expert opinions. Use reproducible steps: capture file hash, filter, query, and result. Present timestamps in UTC and define abbreviations. Include negative findings-what was not found-because they affect scope.
Admissibility depends on relevance, authenticity, and reliability. Courts may apply Daubert or Frye standards; be ready to explain testing, error rates, peer review, and general acceptance. Expert testimony should stay within expertise. Demonstratives must accurately represent underlying data and be discoverable.
Worked example
A report says “the user exfiltrated 4 GB.” Better: “Host 10.0.4.17 transferred approximately 4.1 GB to 203.0.113.8 over TLS between 14:02 and 14:37 UTC. The IP resolved to a cloud host; the user identity is inferred from DHCP and VPN logs, not from the packet alone.” Reasoning: the second version separates measured traffic from attribution and states the basis.
Traps
Overstating attribution from IP addresses; omitting hashes and tool versions; using unexplained jargon; and presenting a conclusion without showing the underlying query. Also avoid claiming a tool is error-free.