Measurements with meaning.
From visible signature resemblance to writing features and calibrated comparisons, see which question each output actually answers.
Understand the outputsWHY ADMISSIBLE LAB
A clearer way
to work with
forensic evidence.
Bring AI-assisted analysis, quantified measurements and connected reporting into your investigation. From a questioned signature to a complex recording, give every evidence question a focused workflow.
FROM SOURCE TO INSIGHTIllustrative
- 01Original evidence
- 02Quantified signals
- 03Connected exhibits
Designed for connected examinationSeven evidence categoriesSpecific questions. Defined outputs.Source-linked workflows
01 / THE ADMISSIBLE DIFFERENCE
More insight.
Fewer disconnected steps.
Bring focused tools, clear output types and evidence context into one examination journey.
More connected evidence.
Move from a document page to a signature crop, from a recording to a timeline, and from processing to a source-linked exhibit.
Explore the workflowClarification from captured data.
Create clearer image, audio and video copies using non-generative processing and information present in the source.
Explore enhancementPurpose-built analysis.
Use capture, format and reference requirements to select the right method across seven evidence categories.
Explore the capabilities02 / TRADITIONAL TASKS. A CONNECTED APPROACH.
See where the
workflow changes.
Compare tasks commonly performed manually or across separate specialist tools with the corresponding Admissible Lab workflow.
SIGNATURES & WRITING
Explore this solution A comparison built around the reference material.
| The task | Manual / separate tools | With Admissible Lab | Practical difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prepare samples | Crop and arrange the questioned material and references across separate files. | Extract candidates or start with prepared images, keeping source links and reference sets visible. | Less repeated handling between preparation and comparison. |
| Measure features | Record shape, line quality, slant and spacing through individual inspection and measurement. | Combine visual comparisons with quantified handwriting features and suitable multi-reference outputs. | A consistent set of measured characteristics to compare. |
| Explore dynamics | Inspect timing and pressure in dedicated capture tools when real capture data exists. | Review writing speed, pressure and pen lifts from genuine digitizer captures. | Static comparisons and real dynamics remain clearly separated. |
DOCUMENTS
Explore this solution Connect the page, the file and the physical feature.
| The task | Manual / separate tools | With Admissible Lab | Practical difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inspect file history | Read embedded metadata and compare timestamps or software traces individually. | Extract supported file metadata and run defined inconsistency checks. | A focused starting point for document-history questions. |
| Prepare signatures | Select and clean signature regions, then track their document locations manually. | Create linked signature crops with source-page identifiers. | Less fragmented preparation for downstream comparison. |
| Reveal physical features | Adjust lighting and image contrast with separate tools for each capture. | Use dedicated enhancement for suitable raking-light or transmitted-light photographs. | Feature processing matched to the captured physical signal. |
IMAGES
Explore this solution Bring different image signals into the same investigation.
| The task | Manual / separate tools | With Admissible Lab | Practical difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Investigate duplication | Inspect a suspected repeated region and search for matching features. | Locate the prominent copy-move correspondence and its translation offset. | Mapped region pairs for a more focused visual comparison. |
| Inspect image history | Inspect file structure and compare suspected regions through separate diagnostic tools. | Combine file-level checks, compression maps and local image statistics where suitable. | Complementary outputs for the specific authenticity question. |
| Check provenance | Locate a credential record and check its integrity separately. | Check the embedded provenance manifest and whether its hashes verify. | Cryptographic provenance remains distinct from statistical screening. |
AUDIO & VOICE
Explore this solution Answer different recording questions with different tools.
| The task | Manual / separate tools | With Admissible Lab | Practical difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Draft a transcript | Listen repeatedly and record uncertain words in a separate transcript. | Generate an original-source draft with per-word confidence and visibly marked uncertainty. | A structured first draft with uncertainty retained. |
| Compare recordings | Use separate listening and comparison processes for speaker or content questions. | Choose voice-similarity comparison or shared-recorded-content comparison. | A clearer distinction between who sounds similar and what content is shared. |
| Inspect continuity | Review transitions and background changes across the recording. | Inspect detectable hum continuity and adjacent speaker or environment changes. | Targeted continuity traces and segment-level leads. |
VIDEO
Explore this solution Follow both the image sequence and the recording clock.
| The task | Manual / separate tools | With Admissible Lab | Practical difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inspect the timeline | Check timestamps, repeated frames and file properties across separate tools. | Combine frame and timing records, container checks and defined duplicate-frame workflows. | Timing and content outputs connected to a specific source. |
| Align recordings | Locate shared events and estimate timing differences manually. | Use timing anchors to estimate offsets and drift, including uncertainty and disagreements. | A documented alignment rather than an assumed shared clock. |
| Clarify viewing | Export frames and adjust separate viewing copies. | Build non-generative viewing copies from aligned captured frames and recorded operations. | Clearer presentation with source and derivative kept distinct. |
EVIDENCE & REPORTING
Explore this solution Keep the finding connected to the source.
| The task | Manual / separate tools | With Admissible Lab | Practical difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organise outputs | Collect crops, measurements and notes from separate processing tools. | Connect selected outputs, source identifiers and workflow context. | Fewer disconnected handoffs in the evidence record. |
| Explain processing | Reconstruct the operations used to prepare a viewing or listening copy. | Retain supported processing steps and original-to-derivative relationships. | A clearer account of how an exhibit was produced. |
| Communicate the result | Translate technical outputs into a report from individual records. | Use the reporting workflow to organise selected results and supporting exhibits. | A more coherent route from analysis to explanation. |
Workflow comparison, not a performance benchmark. Existing forensic practice also uses specialist software; the difference depends on the tools and process already in place.
03 / MODEL YOUR OWN WORKFLOW
What could
the difference be?
Estimate staff time and total cost using your own assumptions. Include preparation, verification, rework and reporting in both hour estimates.
Your task. Your assumptions.
All monetary amounts are in USD.
Additional costs include software, processing and allocated implementation or training fees.
YOUR PLANNING SCENARIO
Estimated staff time released3 hours37.5% less staff time
Estimated net cost savingUS$35029.2% lower estimated cost
Enter a valid number in every field. Current hours must be at least 0.25; other values must be zero or more and within the displayed field limits.
Illustrative planning estimates, not measured product savings, product pricing or a turnaround guarantee. Reduced staff effort creates capacity; it does not necessarily reduce payroll or client fees.
04 / ACCURACY & RELIABILITY
Understand the signal
behind the result.
Quantified evidence makes a comparison more explicit. Performance still depends on the specific method, source quality, reference material and validation coverage.
The right evidence for the question.
Real pressure and timing need genuine digitizer data. Compression workflows need the right encoding history. Camera comparisons need suitable reference frames.
See evidence requirementsDifferent signals, clearly distinguished.
Descriptive similarity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic maps and cryptographic checks represent different forms of evidence. Their values are not interchangeable authenticity percentages.
Understand result typesValidation that fits the intended use.
Compare validation coverage, false positives, false negatives and inconclusive outcomes for the specific task. A published benchmark alone does not establish performance on every kind of case material.
Explore research & validationHow should time savings and accuracy be evaluated together?
Compare the same tasks on representative material with known ground truth and the same reporting standard. Record total staff effort, elapsed turnaround, rework and the method’s appropriate error measures. Repeatability, decision accuracy and processing speed are different properties; no platform-wide accuracy increase is claimed.
05 / ONE PLATFORM. CONNECTED CAPABILITIES.
Follow the evidence
across disciplines.
Explore the technical depth behind the workflow, from comparison and diagnostic screening to clarification and reporting.
Signatures
Multi-reference comparison & genuine capture dynamics
Handwriting
Authorship comparison & measured writing features
Documents
Metadata, extraction & physical-feature enhancement
Images
Duplication, provenance & image diagnostic signals
Audio
Transcription, voice comparison & continuity
Video
Frame timing, source indicators & calibrated workflows
Specialist tools
Encoding, recapture, synchronisation & motion tools
06 / BEFORE YOU START
Clear answers.
A better starting point.
What makes Admissible Lab different?
Admissible Lab connects purpose-specific forensic workflows across signatures, handwriting, documents, images, audio and video. It brings quantified outputs, source context and non-generative clarification into a connected examination and reporting process.
How much time or cost can the platform save?
The difference depends on your baseline process, source quality, chosen methods and reporting scope. Use the estimator with your own staff hours and allocated costs, then compare those assumptions with measured work. The displayed example is not a product performance benchmark.
Does AI-assisted analysis automatically improve accuracy?
No universal accuracy uplift is claimed. A method may add useful measurements or screening signals, but its performance must be assessed for the intended evidence and task. The research and module pages describe output types and available validation scope.
Does enhancement generate missing details?
The described enhancement workflows use non-generative processing to reduce noise or adjust contrast and level using captured information. They produce separate viewing or listening copies, with the original retained.
Can I see the platform with my team’s use case?
Request a platform demonstration and describe the evidence category or workflow you want to explore. The public contact form is for enquiries; it does not accept evidence uploads.
YOUR NEXT INVESTIGATION
See the difference
in your workflow.
Explore the platform around the evidence questions your team handles.
FROM SOURCE TO OUTPUT
See what the tools contribute.
Explore the measured features, processing stages and source relationships behind the workflow.