First establish which versions were examined
The reviewer needs the report with its appendices, the file list and the available source files. Examining an original file and analysing a screenshot offer different possibilities. If this distinction is not explained, it is necessary to check whether the answer has been extended to an object that was not examined.
From an observation to its impact
Each point must identify the page and the specific method or feature, and explain how the deficiency affects the answer. The absence of metadata does not in itself confirm compositing: metadata may have been removed during ordinary forwarding or saving.
- Is the provenance of each image clear?
- Have the original files and the identification of copies been preserved?
- Is format conversion distinguished from alteration of content?
- Does the conclusion match the capabilities of the material used?
A review must not present its own version of events as the result of a repeat examination. If verification requires an additional file, this is noted separately, retaining the limitation on the analysis available.
On this subject: Original, copy and screenshot: what changes in photographic examination.