NIST announced four additions to the OSAC Registry on October 6, 2026. The standards concern digital evidence
Evidence is any form of proof, such as objects, materials, or scientific findings, presented to establish or disprove a fact in a legal proceeding. It is used to reconstruct events and link or exclude individuals Read Full Definition handling, audio and video redaction, reporting comparisons of trace materials, and competence of inspection bodies. Forensic organizations should review their applicability, but Registry inclusion does not itself impose a universal legal compliance deadline.
What changed in the October 2026 OSAC Registry update?
The October 2026 OSAC Standards Bulletin identifies four standards added to the Registry:
- SWGDE 18-F-003-2.0: Best Practices for Mobile Device Evidence Collection & Preservation, Handling, and Acquisition.
- SWGDE 18-M-001-2.3: Video and Audio Redaction Guidelines.
- ANSI/ASTM E3462-25e1: Standard Guide for Interpretation and Reporting in Forensic Comparisons of Trace Materials.
- ISO/IEC 17020:2026: Conformity assessment — Requirements for bodies performing inspection.
These are newly registered standards, not necessarily newly published documents. The two SWGDE documents were finalized in 2025, and ISO published its 2026 revision in March. October 6 is the date of their OSAC Registry addition.
Mobile-device evidence preservation
SWGDE 18-F-003-2.0 describes practices for collection, preservation, handling, and acquisition of mobile-device evidence. Its guidance addresses evidence integrity, documentation of a device’s condition, and preservation risks arising from continued device activity or network connectivity. For laboratories and field personnel, the Registry addition is a reason to compare current procedures and training with this published document.
Audio and video redaction
SWGDE 18-M-001-2.3 provides guidance for creating recordings in which specified information is concealed or removed. It covers the documentation of redaction requests, suitable techniques, quality review, and retention of source and project materials. Redaction is distinct from forensic analysis of the recording; its purpose and limitations should be clear to anyone receiving the edited version.
Interpretation and reporting of trace evidence
ANSI/ASTM E3462-25e1 addresses the interpretation and reporting of comparative findings for trace materials, including glass, fibers, hair, paint, and tape. It emphasizes communicating the significance of associations or exclusions with reference to the methods used, their discrimination capabilities, and relevant background information. This is important because analytical similarity does not automatically establish a common source.
Inspection-body requirements under ISO/IEC 17020:2026
ISO/IEC 17020:2026 sets requirements for the competence, impartiality, and consistent operation of inspection bodies. ISO describes changes to independence classifications, risk-based thinking, and data
Information in analog or digital form that can be transmitted or processed. Read Full Definition and information control. This standard should not be confused with ISO/IEC 17025, which applies to testing and calibrationThe act of checking or adjusting (by comparison with a standard) the accuracy of a measuring instrument. Operation that, under specified conditions, in a first step, establishes a relation between the quantity values with measurement Read Full Definition laboratories. Its relevance to a forensic organization depends on whether it performs inspection activities and the scope of its accreditationAccreditation – a process by which a laboratory must prove to an accrediting agency that their processes, equipment, and employees are competent, credible, and accurate. The accrediting agency will inspect the laboratory and observe its Read Full Definition.
What should forensic organizations do?
Technical managers and quality officers can start with a documented applicability review. Identify which services fall within the scope of each document, compare existing SOPs and training records, record any gaps, and consult the relevant accreditation or governing authority about implementation expectations. Avoid describing Registry placement as an immediate legal mandate for every laboratory.
A practical five-point review for forensic units
- Identify the applicable standard: map each document to the unit’s actual work rather than treating every Registry addition as relevant to every discipline.
- Check the exact version: record the designation and revision date; for example, the October trace-evidence addition is E3462-25e1, not the superseded E3462-25 version.
- Compare existing practice: review mobile-device handling records, redaction requests and quality checks, trace-evidence reporting language, or inspection-body procedures as appropriate.
- Assess personnel training: determine whether practitioners understand the limitations of the method and can explain how their records support the reported findings.
- Document decisions: keep a gap assessment, action owner, target date, and the reason for any finding that a standard does not apply.
For example, a digital forensics unit might compare its device-intake forms and evidence-preservation instructions with the SWGDE mobile-device guidance. A trace-evidence laboratory might instead focus on whether its report wording accurately conveys the significance and limits of an analytical association. These are examples of sensible review priorities, not new requirements invented by the October bulletin.
For related context, see Simply Forensic’s articles on crime scene documentation, digital forensic workload, and the separate September 2026 OSAC DNA standards update.
