Unimpeachable Methodological Consistency

The Foundation of Unassailable Authority

When you sit in deposition or at trial, you can speak with absolute confidence about your methodology because it is not something you invented for this case. It is something you have applied in hundreds or thousands of cases. The best defense against aggressive cross-examination is not clever language or diplomatic positioning. It is methodological consistency applied with rigor. In this 24^th article of the Unimpeachable Neutrality series, the author addresses something that has become increasingly important as technology changes the nature of expert testimony: the relationship between consistency, methodology, and credibility.

The best defense against aggressive cross-examination is not clever language or diplomatic positioning. It is methodological consistency applied with rigor. When your methodology is sound and you apply it the same way, no matter who hires you, in every case, your testimony becomes unassailable, not because you are evasive, but because there is nothing vulnerable to assault.

Opposing counsel understands this. They are going to deploy AI tools to analyze your prior reports. They are going to run algorithmic analysis on your depositions. They are going to search for inconsistencies. But when those tools and analyses examine your work, they should find consistency. They should find methodology applied the same way to different facts. They should find conclusions that flow logically from that methodology rather than conclusions that methodology was selected to reach.

In this 24^th article of the Unimpeachable Neutrality series, I want to address something that has become increasingly important as technology changes the nature of expert testimony: the relationship between consistency, methodology, and credibility.

What I Actually Do

Before I get into why this matters, let me be clear about what I am describing. I am not talking about reaching the same conclusion in every case. I am not talking about inflexible methodology that ignores differences in the facts. I am talking about something more fundamental: applying defensible, rigorous methodology in the same way to every fact pattern until the facts themselves require a different analysis.

My approach to damages work resembles an assembly line. I use the same data sources. I apply the same analytical approach. I make the same assumptions about what population-level data shows. I present scenarios the same way when there are disputes about what the facts are. I change methodology only when the facts genuinely require it. And when I do change methodology, I document why.

For household services damages, I use American Time Use Survey (ATUS) data for all persons by age. I do not speculate about whether a specific plaintiff would have been working or not working. I do not adjust based on the person’s profession or my prediction of their behavior. I use what the ATUS data shows for people that age. That is the same approach in every case. A 28-year-old gets the 28-year-old data. A 65-year-old gets the 65-year-old data. Male or female, the household services rate is the same because I use gender-neutral averages.

For life expectancy and work-life expectancy, I use population-level tables by age. Gender-neutral, race-neutral. No one gets more or less damages because of who they are. Every person of the same age uses the same table. This is consistency. This is rigorous application of neutral methodology.

The Assembly Line Principle

I treat the production of damage calculations the way a manufacturer treats an assembly line. There is a standard process. There are standard inputs and standard outputs. You do not change the process on a whim. You do not change it because a customer prefers a different result. You change it only when you have identified a genuine deficiency and you have a reason to improve it that applies to all future cases.

When I identify that I should be using a different data source, or weighting factors differently, or applying assumptions differently, that becomes the new standard. It applies to all subsequent cases until I identify another reason to change it. It does not apply backward. It does not apply selectively based on client preference.

This consistency is your authority. When you sit in deposition or at trial, you can speak with absolute confidence about your methodology because it is not something you invented for this case. It is something you have applied in hundreds or thousands of cases. When you say “I use gender-neutral household services rates and life expectancy,” you are not making a one-off decision. You are describing a practice you have maintained across all your work.

The Defense Against Algorithmic Attack

Opposing counsel’s AI tools are going to flag apparent inconsistencies. They will note that in Case A, you concluded damages of $X, and in Case B, you concluded damages of $Y. Why the difference?

If you have been methodologically inconsistent, if you selected different approaches based on who your client was, or what result would be favorable, or what assumptions would push conclusions in a particular direction, then you have a problem. The algorithm has found something real. But if your methodology is consistent, your answer is simple: “In Case A, the plaintiff was age 45 with an Associate’s Degree. In Case B, the plaintiff was age 28 with a high school education. I applied the same methodology in both cases. The conclusions differ because the facts differ.”

That is the end of the argument. The algorithm is not attacking something real. It is noting that your conclusions appropriately reflect different facts analyzed under the same methodology. This is why consistency is your shield. Not because it allows you to hide anything, but because there is nothing hidden to find.

What This Looks Like Across Your Work

In depositions, you can answer with confidence: “I applied this methodology in this case the same way I apply it in every similar case. Here is why I selected this data source. Here is how I made this assumption. Here is what the population-level evidence shows. When the facts are uncertain, I presented both scenarios.”

In damage reports, you are not defending a conclusion. You are documenting methodology and presenting what the data shows.

In neutral expert appointments, your consistency and transparency become your credibility. You serve no client. You serve the methodology and the data (and the Court).

In valuations, you follow the work to its conclusion rather than reaching for a predetermined result.

Why Authority, Not Advocacy

There is a difference between having authority and being an advocate. Authority comes from methodological consistency and rigor. Advocacy comes from trying to win for your side. These are not compatible.

When you approach your work with the goal of following the methodology to wherever it leads, your conclusions carry authority. They are not vulnerable to attack because they are not outcome driven. When opposing counsel asks “aren’t you just trying to support your client?” you can say with absolute truth: “No. I followed the methodology. This is what the data shows. If it had shown something different, I would have reported that.” And you mean it, because it is true.

The Unimpeachable Position

After 14 years and thousands of engagements, I understand that the most unimpeachable testimony is testimony grounded in defensible, consistent methodology applied with rigor. It is not testimony that has been polished or packaged to persuade. It is testimony about what the data actually shows. Opposing counsel may not like your conclusion. They may argue about your assumptions. They may dispute the facts. But they cannot argue that you are being subjective, that you are being selective, that you are trying to reach a predetermined result. Because you are not doing any of those things. You are applying methodology consistently. You are presenting what the data shows. And that is unassailable.

---

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.