Keywords
incom-pleteness of expert research
unsubstantiated expert conclusion
procedurally conditioned incompleteness
cause-and-effect relation
phase-modular reconstruction
transparent reporting
How to Cite
Abstract
The article examines the distinction between incomplete expert examination and unsubstantiated conclusions in forensic mining engineering examination. It argues that these are related but not identical procedural and methodological phenomena. Incompleteness reflects insufficient coverage of the object, the event, or the factual basis of the examination, whereas unsubstantiatedness concerns deficiencies in the logical and cognitive construction of the path from the available materials to the conclusion. The study demonstrates the functional relationship between these phenomena and identifies the point at which incompleteness may transform into unsubstantiatedness, namely when uncertainty caused by gaps in relevant data is presented as completed knowledge and the limits of reconstruction are not explicitly stated.The authors propose distinguishing procedurally conditioned incompleteness from incompleteness resulting from methodological errors by the expert. Typical forms of incompleteness include an insufficient factual basis, flaws in the formulation of the task, incomplete subject-related analysis, and chronological or causal gaps in reconstructing theevent. The forms of unsubstantiatedness are systematized as excessive definiteness despite insufficient data, factual inconsistencies, logical discontinuities, methodological inadequacy, and conclusions that go beyond specialized knowledge. The methodological framework of thestudy is a structured phase-and-module reconstruction combined with a cause-and-effect tree, which ensures comprehensive incident coverage and a transparent transition from materials to expert judgment. The novelty lies in the operational distinction between incompleteness andunfoundedness, as well as in the combination of the criteria of reliability, transparency, and suitability for verification with an industry-oriented approach to assessing the conclusion in forensic mining expertise.
References
Puhach, I. I., Kharchenko, V. V., Kharchenko, V. V., & Puhach, I. Yu. (2026). Delineating the primary technical cause from concomitant factors in forensic mining engineering examination: A phase-module approach. In Modern Perspectives on Global Scientific Solutions: Proceedings of the VII International Scientific and Practical Conference “Scientific Research: Emerging Theories and Practical Breakthroughs” (Edinburgh, March 23–25. 2026) (pp. 231–243). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19200239 [in Ukrainian].
Kopanchuk, V. O., Osmolian, V. A., & Turovets, Yu. M. (2022). Features and main stages of the procedural and legal evaluation of the expert opinion. Pravo.ua, (1), 90–97. https://doi.org/10.32782/LAW.UA.2022.15 [in Ukrainian].
Kotlyarenko, L., Myrovska, A., Pavlovska, N., Patyk, L., & Zherebak, V. (2023). Issues of the quality of the forensic expert opinion and some forensic errors. International Academy Journal. https://doi.org/10.32370/IA_2023_06_4.
Makarova, O. P. (2024). Scientific and methodological foundations for forming a reliable expert opinion. Bulletin of the Criminological Association of Ukraine, 32(2), 322–333. https://doi.org/10.32631/vca.2024.2.23 [in Ukrainian].
Yazdi, M., Mohammadpour, J., Li, H., et al. (2023). Fault tree analysis improvements: A bibliometric analysis and literature review. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 39(5), 1639–1659. https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.3271.
Pan, K., Liu, H., Gou, X., et al. (2022). Towards a systematic description of fault tree analysis studies using informetric mapping. Sustainability, 14(18), 11430. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811430.
Mello, H., Lobato, M., Arruda, S., et al. (2025). Dynamic barriers monitoring in the mining industry and its contribution to process safety. Process Safety Progress, 44(4), 615–620. https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.70015.
Li, L., & Fang, Z. (2022). Cause analysis of coal mine gas explosion based on Bayesian network. Shock and Vibration, 2022, Article 1923734. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1923734.
Liu, Y., Liang, Y., & Li, Q. (2023). Cause analysis of coal mine gas accidents in China based on association rules. Applied Sciences, 13(16), 9266. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13169266.
Ouyang, Z., Xu, Q., Zhang, T., et al. (2025). Coupling analysis of disaster causing factors in coal mines and dual prevention mechanism based on the KeyBERT model and accident causation theory model. Frontiers in Earth Science, 13, 1586785. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2025.1586785.
Rakoff, J. S., & Liu, G. (2023). Forensic science: A judicial perspective. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120(41), e2301838120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2301838120.
Swofford, H., Lund, S., Taylor, M., et al. (2025). Validation in forensic science: Guiding principles for the collection and use of validation data (NIST IR 8589). National Institute of Standards and Technology. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8589.
Behrens, M. A., & Trask, A. J. (2024). Federal Rule of Evidence 702: A history and guide to the 2023 amendments governing expert evidence. Texas A&M Law Review, 12(1), 43–75. https://doi.org/10.37419/LR.V12.I1.2.
Ballantyne, K. N., Summersby, S., Pearson, J. R., et al. (2024). A transparent approach: Openness in forensic science reporting. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 8, 100474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2024.100474.
Martire, K. A. (2025). Transparent reporting in forensic science: Exploring its meaning and challenges. Forensic Science International: Synergy, 11, 100630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsisyn.2025.100630.
Puhach, I. I., & Kharchenko, V. V. (2025). Evaluation of input data in forensic mining engineering examination in the context of regulatory constraints and limits of technical interpretation. In Innovative Approaches in Modern Science and Technology: Collection of Scientific Papers “International Scientific Unity” with Proceedings of the 1st International Scientific and Practical Conference (Lisbon, March 26–28, 2025) (pp. 319–324). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19233841 [in Ukrainian].
17. Puhach, I. I., Kharchenko, V. V., & Cheberiachko, Yu. I. (2025). Formalization of causal analysis in forensic mining engineering examination: A concept of methodological renewal. In Collection of Scientific Papers with the Proceedings of the 1st International Scientific and Practical Conference “Innovations in Science: From Theoretical Foundations to Practical Impact” (Antwerp, May 12–14, 2025) (pp. 370–383). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15395524 [in Ukrainian].
Molamehdizadeh, N., Halvani, G. H., Ebrahimi, H., et al. (2025). Root cause analysis of accidents and examining their interrelations from the perspective of workers, supervisors, and safety officers. PLOS ONE, 20(11), e0334968. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334968.