From Forensic Dentistry by Paul G. Stimson and Curtis A. Mertz:
The examiner begins by evaluating tooth #1 and associated radiographs. The second dentist on the examination team evaluates tooth #1 and confirms the findings of the first dentist. The recorder charts the findings of tooth #1 and all three team members confirm the charting. Tooth #2 is examined and the process repeated until all 32 teeth have been charted. The approach is redundant, but errors are corrected as they are made. Charting should be done in pen, not pencil. Errors should be corrected in a legally acceptable fashion. Sometimes it is effective to begin a new form in order to present an error-free form in court. (200)
Let me repeat that last sentence: Sometimes it is effective to begin a new form in order to present an error-free form in court.
Seems obvious, but I still keep thinking about the implications - how the presentation of evidence is so different from the process of finding, examining, and interpreting it.
The process is all about acknowleding error, fallibility, and limitations. The same holds true in creative writing, which is one reason I find forensic metaphors so exciting. We should never be afraid to acknowledge our limitations, flaws, and mistakes while we are in process. Makes us look a whole lot better when our work goes out into the world. And we can face readers with something approaching certainty - in our process, in our rigor, and in our humility.
Like the forensic dentist, we should always be willing to examine the same tooth twice - and then once again, just to be sure.