General Terminology

Systemic, intelligent generation and evaluation of specifications for artifacts whose form and function achieve stated objectives and satisfy specified constraints.

Investigation of artifacts that fail or do not operate or function as intended, causing personal injury and/or monetary loss. The consequences of these failures are dealt with in the court of law, and forensic engineering utilizes failure analysis, root cause analysis, and determination of liability to support these court proceedings.

Using evidence from a crime scene (e.g., tire marks, site of collision) to recreate the events that preceded a collision.

Fire investigations are conducted by a forensic engineer to look at potential arson cases through the analysis of burn patterns and identification of an area of origin.

A process through which forensic engineers closely examine for minutiae and areas of failure in a piece of infrastructure or product to determine a cause of the failure.

A stringent examination that ensures product quality and safety are maintained.

A means of testing where the initial state (state in which evidence was found) of the evidence being analyzed is maintained during analysis.

A means of testing where the evidence being analyzed is not maintained during analysis and is used up during the testing.

A mode of failure is a way that a piece of infrastructure or product can fail.

The mechanism of failure describes how a mode of failure resulted.

Determines why a failure took place.

A process that incorporates incident and evidence documenting, testing of the failed product, and determination of the mode and mechanism of failure. Failure analysis does not include root cause analysis, determination of the cause of the incident, or making recommendations.

Aspects of the infrastructure or product that can explain why the failure occurred.

The specific factor responsible for the failure of the product or infrastructure.

A sense of confusion and worry experienced by the judge, members of the jury, or the trier of fact when the physical evidence presented in court is supported by drastically different testimonies or opinions of expert witnesses.

A form of bias that is introduced by selecting individuals, evidence, data, or other factors that favor one conclusion over another and thus fail to present a randomized response.

A form of bias that presents a conflict of interest due to a predisposition for or against a certain outcome by an individual who is unable to practice objectivity and impartiality.

A form of bias that can cause an individual to present facts or evidence that act in their benefit or that are outside their area of expertise.

A form of bias where certain aspects of the analysis or evidence processing are weighted more heavily or treated as more important than others, as they support a specific conjecture or narrative. This form of bias can occur during evidence collection, evidence analysis, or evidence presentation in court.

A form of bias that is often introduced after a fact or event has been revealed, which an individual claims to have had insight about all along.

A form of bias that will result in an individual implementing their bias into the conclusions that are drawn as they think that it is better for societal good.

A form of bias where an individual’s expectation of what an outcome should be alters the significance given to evidence presented and can sway the conclusions made.

A form of bias where one alters their opinion or analysis to fit a narrative that has been proven to be true or supported by others.