Unimpeachable Certainty in the Age of Digital Distortion and Artificial Intelligence
Trust but Authenticate
This 20th article in the Unimpeachable Neutrality series explores why and how valuation and forensic accounting experts may need to evolve toward a new standard: unimpeachable certainty.
Neutrality, once the highest standard of expert credibility, must now be supplemented with verifiable authentication practices to ensure that expert conclusions are not built upon fabricated realities. Neutrality without authentication has become not a virtue, but a risk; a structural weakness that can be exploited. This evolution marks a pivotal moment for our profession. Those who remain static, clinging to an outdated conception of unimpeachability, will find themselves undermined not by cross-examination, but by invisible, synthetic sabotage. In a world where deepfakes, PDF shadow attacks, and AI-generated evidence can now be produced without a single line of code, neutrality is no longer the endgame; it is the entry point. This landmark 20th installment of the Unimpeachable Neutrality series redefines what it means to be a credible expert witness. From real-world examples of synthetic document manipulation to the rising threats of AI “hallucinations” in expert analysis, this article outlines the fortified clarity practices that experts must adopt to remain not just relevant, but unimpeachable certain.
Trust but Authenticate
The adage for evidence “trust but verify” is now obsolete. Verification alone presumes the inputs are legitimate, but the emergence of deepfakes, AI-generated hallucinations, and technology that can be instructed to “sound more human”, authentication must precede verification, requiring experts trust but authenticate as means of ensuring that the truths we testify to are well-founded and not synthetic illusions. An expert who cannot affirmatively demonstrate that their conclusions are built upon authenticated realities invites suspicion; and ultimately irrelevance. Experts must now demonstrate that their conclusions are built upon a solid, authenticated foundation. Without deliberate, methodical authentication, the modern expert risks building conclusions atop false foundations. In the age of digital distortion, unimpeachable neutrality must evolve into unimpeachable certainty; because truth, once lost, cannot be cross-examined back into existence.
Digital Distortion
Experts should incorporate basic metadata review protocols into their analytical workflows, or seek forensic assistance where needed. Red flags must be identified, documented, and addressed; not rationalized away. Expert testimony today faces threats beyond human bias and clerical error. A more insidious adversary has emerged: technological distortion. Once, evidence could be touched, inspected, and verified through tangible means. Deepfake videos, falsified PDFs, and AI-generated documents can deceive professionals without countermeasures. The enemy is not merely misinformation. It is the fabrication of convincing counter-realities. Digital evidence used to be protected by metadata, timestamps, file origins, and revise histories. Today, even these forensic fingerprints can be artificially altered. A document created last week can be made to appear authored five years ago. A photo taken in one location can be remapped to another location or produce a professional headshot of a real person that never physically took place. Even metadata, the fingerprint of digital evidence, is not immune to the manipulation of creation dates, editing histories, signature integrity, or geolocation, which can expose evidence tampering long before content alone would raise suspicion. Below are a few foundational practices that will help mitigate the likelihood that an expert will be outflanked by digital distortion:
Digital Due Diligence
Courts, experts, and attorneys must not accept digital evidence at face value. Authentication is no longer ancillary, it is foundational. Where critical documents, electronically signed contracts/agreements, or electronically stored data form the basis of conclusions, experts should insist upon—or independently pursue—source authentication. This may require that attorneys, experts, and even courts revisit the sufficiency of procedures used to authenticate documents and evidence. Moreover, the world legal and forensic professionals now operate within beseeches that we revisit authenticating evidence, by placing emphasis on things like chain of custody documentation for electronic files, third-party digital forensic verification procedures/programs, and digital/e-signature integrity reports to ensure that evidence is relied upon as authentic. Take, for example, a PDF containing “shadow content”; invisible elements hidden within an electronic document that are revealed only after it is electronically or digitally signed.
Traditionally, evidence came with context; hard copies, discernible edits, familiar signs of tampering. But today, forgery is quiet, and deception is smooth. In the past, chain-of-custody forms and certification from a document custodian via affidavit might have sufficed to authenticate a document. While an ink signature on a hard copy of a contract has typically been considered proof that a meeting of the minds took place and the terms within said signed document were agreed upon by the parties signing the document, courts and experts must now grapple with electronic signature, signature integrity validation, and audit reports, which must be assessed in tandem to accomplish the same level of authenticity. As the electronic signature of both parties to a contract must now be assessed to prove not just the identification of the parties who are contracting electronically, but also proof of the very integrity of the document itself as being the exact same document and terms for which the parties that electronically signed said document agreed to.
           Digital Skepticism
In an era of manufactured realities, skepticism is not cynicism; it is duty. The unimpeachable expert must be the most disciplined, deliberate skeptic in the room. The courtroom is becoming a battleground of manufactured evidence. Experts must be prepared to defend not only their conclusions but the integrity of every bit of evidence they relied upon. Experts should affirmatively disclose their authentication steps within their reports, narratives, or oral testimony. By stating what was authenticated, how it was authenticated, and by whom, experts transform potential cross-examination traps into evidence of rigor and responsibility. Courts are already grappling with incidents where the “evidence” presented was not merely misleading but synthetic. Experts who fail to detect or disclose falsifications will find their opinions impeached not by better logic but by betrayal of foundational facts. Jurors, judges, and even opposing counsel are primed to distrust. In times like these, professionals can no longer rely on the assumption that someone else has vetted the evidence. Courts will eventually expect experts to do more than offer opinions, they will expect them to confirm that what they reviewed is real, complete, and untouched.
The Unimpeachably Certain Expert
The unimpeachable expert of yesterday stood apart through neutrality. The unimpeachable expert of tomorrow must stand above distortion through fortified clarity. Neutrality has long stood as the gold standard of expert testimony. The capacity to separate professional judgment from personal interest has served as the final barricade between bias and truth. But today, the nature of the battlefield has shifted. In the age of deepfakes, AI-manipulated contracts, and synthetic voices, reality itself has become vulnerable to distortion. In an era where synthetic realities are crafted with ease, where data can be fabricated faster than it can be authenticated, it is imperative that lawyers, judges, lawmakers, and experts be prepared to revisit our core principles like never before. Courts, as gatekeepers, must place higher value on expert testimony and evidentiary weight built on a foundation by experts who take care to authenticate before they analyze, disclosing their diligence, not just their opinions. The age of synthetic evidence demands vigilance, operational transparency, and fortified clarity at every turn. This will require a new breed of experts who are not simply unbiased but have put in the work necessary to be viewed by the triers of fact as unimpeachably certain.
Zachary Meyers, CPA, CVA, is the managing member of C. Zachary Meyers, PLLC specializing in litigatory accounting and valuation services. He has been retained in over 2,900 matters since 2011, as a testifying expert, consulting expert, or neutral/court appointed expert qualified in forensic accounting, business valuation, pension valuation, and taxation. Mr. Meyers has held multiple influential roles on national and international standard setting bodies, where he has made significant contributions to the financial disciplines at the highest levels of the National Association of Certified Valuators and Analysts (NACVA), Global Association of Certified Valuators and Analysts (GACVA), and The Appraisal Foundation (TAF).
Mr. Meyers can be contacted at (304) 690-2619 or by e-mail to czmcpacva@czmeyers.com.
