Compare authorship
Weigh questioned writing against known exemplars with a measured likelihood ratio and structured visual reasoning.
Explore common-authorship comparison ↗HANDWRITING COMPARISON SOFTWARE
Handwriting comparison
& writer analysis.
Compare handwriting samples, explore candidate writers and measure slant, spacing, baseline and stroke features with forensic handwriting analysis software.
Explore measured writing features, structured visual comparisons and candidate rankings with defined output types.
WRITING FEATURE REVIEWIllustrative writing
Questioned sampleReference sample
Look at the letterforms.
Inspect visible loops, connections and proportions. Consider similarities alongside natural variation.
No score or verdict generated
Select a feature or play the illustration.
4 purpose-specific workflowsEach with a defined purpose and scope
Image-based evidenceJPEG, PNG, TIFF and other supported images
Structured result outputsMeasurements support interpretation
01 / THE QUESTION DETERMINES THE METHOD
What do you need
to examine?
Start with the examination question. Comparing authorship, ranking candidate writers and recording measurements require different inputs and interpretations.
Shortlist candidate writers
Rank two or more known candidates and examine the gap between the nearest and second-nearest.
Explore writer ranking ↗Measure visible features
Record baseline, slant, spacing and line-quality indicators without turning them into an authenticity verdict.
Explore screening & measurements ↗HOW THE ANALYSIS WORKS
Connect writing features to the question.
EVIDENCE / EXPLAINEDGuided demonstration
WRITING SPECIMEN FEATURE VIEW
Baseline · spacing · stroke detail
Writing structureGeometryLocal detail
Handwriting / IN PRACTICE
Measure the writing. Explore the relationship.
A questioned note and known writing
01 / Prepare writing samples
Use legible writing and appropriate references. A candidate-writer search needs samples from the supplied candidate writers.
RECORDQuestioned writing · reference material
02 / Describe writing features
Extract structural writing units and measure supported baseline, slant, component dimensions, spacing and stroke width.
RECORDStructure · geometry · spacing
03 / Choose the comparison
Common-authorship comparison evaluates sample relationships statistically. Candidate ranking compares local writing features to shortlist the nearest supplied writers.
RECORDAuthorship evidence · candidate ranking
04 / Connect the observations
Organise feature measurements and line-quality indicators alongside the selected comparison output. Each answers a different part of the writing question.
RECORDMeasurements · comparison record
Demonstration material · annotations explain the workflow; no case result is calculated.
02 / CAPABILITIES, EXPLAINED
Handwriting analysis.
A clear output.
See what each workflow examines, what it needs and how to interpret the result. Expand a workflow for inputs, features and limitations.
01 / COMMON AUTHORSHIP
Handwriting authorship comparison
Compare a questioned writing sample with a known exemplar using measured writing features and an independent visual review.
What you receive: A score-based likelihood ratio, an evidence table and a plain-language explanation.
Inputs, features & limits
Required evidence
Questioned writing and at least one known writing exemplar.
- Check image quality and whether the material can support comparison.
- Describe each sample independently before comparing letterforms and spacing.
- Evaluate competing explanations, including common authorship, disguise, coincidental similarity, reuse and image artifacts.
- State whether the visual reasoning agrees or disagrees with the measured likelihood ratio.
A likelihood ratio weighs evidence under defined hypotheses; it is not a probability that a person is the author. Strength depends on the reference population used in development. Script-independent processing does not establish equal validation across every language.
JPEG · PNG · WEBP · BMP · TIFF
02 / CANDIDATE RANKING
Which known writer is closest?
Compare an anonymous or questioned sample against writing from several candidate writers.
What you receive: An ordered candidate list and the nearest-versus-second-nearest similarity margin.
Inputs, features & limits
Required evidence
Questioned writing and known samples from at least two candidate writers.
- Rank candidates by local visible writing-feature similarity.
- Inspect both the nearest candidate and the second-nearest margin.
- Use the shortlist to organise subsequent comparisons.
This is a closed-set ranking: it always identifies a nearest candidate, even if the actual author is absent. A small margin warrants caution; the ranking is not an authorship verdict.
JPEG · PNG · WEBP · BMP · TIFF
03 / LINE QUALITY
Simulation indicators, quantified
Screen one handwriting or signature image for visible mechanical features that may warrant closer examination.
What you receive: Raw measurements of tremor, terminals, disconnected components and local stroke-width outliers.
Inputs, features & limits
Required evidence
One questioned writing or signature image.
- Quantify stroke-path wobble and curvature variation.
- Inspect blunt versus tapered stroke terminals.
- Identify disconnected ink components and possible local retouching indicators.
A single-image screening tool, with no reference comparison or genuine/forged verdict. Disconnected ink components do not by themselves prove physical pen lifts. Image quality and processing artifacts can affect the indicators.
JPEG · PNG · TIFF · BMP
04 / OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS
Record the writing geometry
Document visible baseline, slant, component dimensions, spacing and stroke width from one writing sample.
What you receive: Per-line measurements, with angles in degrees and dimensions in pixels.
Inputs, features & limits
Required evidence
One handwriting sample image.
- Measure baseline slope and slant in degrees.
- Record connected-component height, width, spacing and stroke width in pixels.
- Assess lines separately where possible; discard unsuitable baseline fits rather than report misleading values.
No DPI is assumed, so pixel measurements are not converted into physical units. Curvature descriptors and dot/diacritic locations are not assessed. No writer-normal range, reference comparison or authenticity verdict is supplied.
JPEG · PNG · TIFF · BMP
03 / TRADITIONAL + ASSISTED EXAMINATION
Less repetitive work.
More room for scrutiny.
Measure writing features, compare reference variation and organise the resulting outputs in one workflow.
| Examination task | Traditional examination | With Admissible assistance |
|---|---|---|
| Sample suitability | Inspect source quality, provenance and whether enough comparable writing is available. | A structured assessability review supports the same suitability decision; poor material still limits the examination. |
| Authorship comparison | Inspect letterforms, spacing, connections and natural variation, then weigh competing explanations. | Add measured likelihood-ratio evidence and a systematic visual evidence table. |
| Candidate selection | Compare candidate writers individually and organise similarities and differences. | Rank candidates and inspect the nearest-versus-second-nearest margin; the actual author may be absent. |
| Measurements & screening | Manually record baseline, slant, dimensions and possible simulation indicators. | Quantify visible geometry and line-quality signals, with fit checks and explicit unassessed features. |
| Time & cost | Preparation, comparison, measurement, reasoning and reporting require working time. | May reduce repetitive measurement and organisation. Input preparation, checking, review and fees also count. |
| Accuracy & final opinion | Depends on evidence quality, comparable material, reference suitability and suitable methods. | Provides additional signals, not a guaranteed accuracy increase. Validation limits and conflicting outputs require human assessment. |
Traditional examination may already use digital tools. This comparison describes workflow roles, not a claim that manual practice is inferior or that assisted outputs are automatically correct.
TIME & COST / YOUR OWN ESTIMATES
Compare the full effort.
Enter the total working hours you expect for each approach, including preparation, checking, interpretation and reporting. Include additional assisted-workflow fees.
What about accuracy?
Time saved is not evidence of better accuracy. Assess each workflow’s tested population, failure modes and suitability for the actual questioned material.
Planning scenarioIllustrative, editable
Enter non-negative values within the displayed input limits.
Estimated time reduction3 hours
Estimated cost reductionUS$350
Traditional: US$1,200 · Assisted: US$850
Example assumptions only. These are not measured platform savings, quoted fees or a performance guarantee.
04 / A TRACEABLE PROCESS
From a questioned note.
To a documented result.
Preserve the source and make the reasoning traceable. Choose the analysis only after confirming the examination question and input requirements.
Preserve & identify
Retain the source, document provenance and select independently sourced known references.
Choose the signal
Match the question to authorship comparison, candidate ranking, line quality or objective measurements.
Review the result
Inspect the source alongside outputs. Consider conflicts, limitations and alternative explanations.
Explain the finding
Document observations, measurements, source links and processing history in the result record.
START WITH THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE
Find the workflow that fits.
A questioned sample, known exemplars and clear source records are the starting point.