23 October 2026 · review.moscow editorial team
Check the exact wording of the question
Start with the document under which the study was carried out: a court order, a resolution or an agreed assignment. Copy the question in full, retaining the specified objects, period, conditions and constituent parts. If the question contains several tasks, separate them for checking. A statement about the presence of defects and a question about their causes require different examination procedures.
Then find the passages relevant to the question throughout the report. Sometimes the answer is set out in the examination section, while the final section contains an abbreviated version or a cross-reference. This may make reading more difficult, but the entire document must be taken into account when assessing completeness. Appendices must also be checked if the author refers to them.
Distinguish no answer from an explained inability to answer
The expert may lack the data needed to resolve the task: the original document is missing, the object has been altered by repairs, or the equipment's operating parameters were not retained. The question may also be outside their specialist knowledge. Therefore, the wording 'it is not possible to establish' does not in itself indicate a shortcoming in the study.
The reason must be understandable in relation to the specific task. What information is missing? Why can a substantiated result not be obtained without it? What work was done with the available materials? Can part of the question be answered? The explanation should make the limits of the study clear. A general reference to insufficient materials without explaining their significance requires clarification.
Another situation is where a result on a related subject is given instead of the answer required. For example, damage is listed but the mechanism by which it occurred is not considered; repair costs are calculated but the scope of work needed to remedy the specific defects is not determined. Here, the reviewer compares the substance of the task with the work actually performed.
Map the question and answer
For an initial check, it is helpful to make a separate list for each item in the assignment. Record the wording of the question, the relevant pages of the study, the results obtained and the final answer. Mark each part of a compound question. This list helps reveal whether the task has been omitted entirely or the answer is limited to a particular object, period or condition.
Watch for changes in meaning. A question about whether goods meet a specific technical specification requires a comparison with its characteristics. A description of the goods' suitability for normal use may be useful, but addresses a different task. The reviewer should show exactly which parameters were not compared and how they matter to the final conclusion.
Check the identification of the object. If the question specifies several products, premises or plots of land, a general answer must have an understandable basis for each or explain why the results were combined. A description of one inspected sample cannot automatically be treated as an answer about the entire batch. At the same time, the possibility of sampling is assessed with regard to the method used and the task posed.
What a specialist checks during a review
The review concerns the connection between the question, input data, methods, results and wording of the conclusion. The reviewer establishes whether the work needed for the stated answer has been performed, whether limitations are recorded and whether the sections of the document are consistent. If there is no answer, it is necessary to determine whether it can be derived from the results already described or whether additional information is required.
For example, all the necessary measurements may be in an appendix, but their significance for the question is not explained. In another case, no measurements were taken at all. On the surface, the outcome is the same — the reader did not receive a clear answer — but the grounds for the comment differ. A review should explain this distinction and avoid assumptions about work not supported by the materials.
The wording of the question itself is also checked. An overly broad assignment, a mixture of technical and legal concepts, or missing initial conditions may prevent an unambiguous result. The reviewer can suggest more precise technical wording. Questions about culpability, the lawfulness of a decision or whether claims should be granted are matters of legal assessment and require discussion with the representative.
What materials are needed for a substantive check
- The full report with appendices and original page numbering.
- The exact wording of the questions posed and any documents amending them.
- A list of the materials provided to the original expert.
- Information about requests for additional documents and the responses, if available.
- The expert's explanations and additional study materials already received.
Identify separately which practical circumstance remains unclear. For a technical check, 'it has not been established which products have the defect found' is more useful than a general request to find breaches. Preserve the documents in their original form; provide your comments in a separate file so they can be distinguished from the report's text.
What questions help clarify the gap
- Does the report contain a substantiated answer to every part of the question posed?
- What results of the study support the answer, and where are they recorded?
- Are the reasons for the inability to answer explained in light of the available materials and the methods used?
- What information or examination procedures are needed to resolve the remaining technical task?
How to present a comment and choose the next step
A comment should include the question number, references to the relevant pages and a description of the uncertainty that remains. It is helpful to state separately what prevents verification: missing input data, an omitted part of the study, a contradiction or unclear wording. This provides grounds for specific explanations and helps avoid a dispute over words alone.
Incompleteness and doubts about whether a report is substantiated may call for different procedural decisions. The need for explanations, an additional examination or a repeat examination is assessed in the circumstances of the case; the authorised body or court makes the decision. A review helps set out arguments based on specialist knowledge and identify unresolved tasks, but does not itself overturn the original expert's conclusions or guarantee that a new examination will be ordered.