Legal Evidence Photo Repair: A Guide to Maintaining Integrity for Court Proceedings

Introduction: The Double-Edged Sword of Photographic Evidence

Imagine a high-stakes criminal trial hinging on a single piece of evidence: a security camera image capturing the perpetrator's face at the scene. The prosecution's case seems solid. But during pre-trial discovery, a critical flaw is revealed---the digital file containing the image is corrupted and cannot be opened. Is this pivotal evidence lost forever, potentially allowing a guilty party to walk free? Or can it be salvaged? This scenario, once a rarity, is now a common challenge in courtrooms worldwide, where digital evidence is a factor in an estimated 90% of criminal cases.

Photographic evidence is a powerful, double-edged sword. A clear, authenticated image can secure a conviction, exonerate the innocent, or decide the outcome of a multi-million dollar civil suit. Its power lies in its ability to provide a direct, visual record of events. Yet, this power is incredibly fragile. Digital evidence is inherently volatile, susceptible to data degradation, file corruption, format incompatibility, and accidental or intentional modification. As the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) notes, the "volatile nature of the data on these devices requires proper seizure to preserve the integrity of the data and ensure their evidentiary value."

The core problem is that the very act of "fixing" a damaged photo can render it inadmissible. A well-intentioned but forensically unsound attempt to repair an image using consumer-grade software can be legally indistinguishable from malicious tampering. The challenge, therefore, is to navigate the treacherous line between legitimate forensic restoration and impermissible alteration. This is not a task for an IT generalist or a graphic designer; it is a specialized discipline within digital forensics that demands a rigorous, scientific approach.

This guide is designed for the stakeholders on the front lines: legal professionals, forensic specialists, law enforcement officers, and insurance investigators. It provides a comprehensive framework for legal photo repair, one that adheres to strict forensic protocols and legal standards. The goal is to equip you with the knowledge to understand, commission, and defend repaired photographic evidence, ensuring it not only reveals the truth but can also withstand the intense scrutiny of the judicial process.

The Legal Gauntlet: Admissibility Standards for Digital Images

Before any repaired photograph can be presented in court, it must first pass through a stringent legal gauntlet designed to ensure fairness and reliability. Understanding these "rules of the game" is not merely academic; it is the foundation upon which all forensic processes are built. Failure to comply with these standards renders even the most technically brilliant evidence image restoration worthless. The legal framework for digital evidence rests on three core pillars, buttressed by the unwavering requirement of a documented Chain of Custody.

The Three Pillars of Admissibility

For a digital image---original, copied, or repaired---to be admitted as evidence, it must satisfy three fundamental legal tests, largely governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) or their state-level equivalents.

1. Relevance

The first and most basic hurdle is relevance. According to FRE Rule 401, evidence is relevant if "it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and the fact is of consequence in determining the action." In simple terms, the photograph must be directly related to the case and help prove or disprove a disputed point. An X-ray showing a plaintiff's injury in a personal injury case is relevant; a vacation photo is not. While seemingly straightforward, even relevant evidence can be excluded if its potential for unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value.

2. Authenticity

This is the most significant challenge for repaired or enhanced images. Authenticity requires the proponent of the evidence to prove that the photograph is a true and accurate representation of what it purports to be. Historically, this was often established through the "pictorial testimony" theory, where a witness with knowledge testifies that the photo accurately depicts the scene as they saw it . However, with digital images, especially those that have been processed, this becomes more complex. The fear, as noted in legal analyses, is that digital images can be manipulated with computer software, raising doubts about their veracity . Authentication for a repaired image, therefore, shifts from simple witness testimony to a rigorous demonstration by a forensic expert that the restoration process recovered the original data without altering its substance.

3. The Best Evidence Rule

FRE Rule 1002, commonly known as the Best Evidence Rule, generally requires an original writing, recording, or photograph to prove its content. This rule was born in an analog era to prevent inaccuracies from manual copying. In the digital age, its application has evolved. Courts now widely accept duplicates, including digital copies, provided their accuracy is not genuinely in question. A "forensic image"---a bit-for-bit copy of the original storage media---is considered the gold standard for a duplicate. As established in cases like United States v. Beeler, an enhanced version can be admissible if it is proven accurate and serves to present the substance of the original in a more understandable form, thus according with the spirit of the rule . The key is that the original data (or its forensic image) must be preserved for comparison.

The Chain of Custody: The Unbroken Trail

If the three pillars are the gate, the Chain of Custody is the path leading to it. It is arguably the single most critical concept in handling digital evidence. The Chain of Custody is defined as the chronological documentation of the handling, transfer, and storage of evidence from the moment of collection until its presentation in court . Its purpose is to establish the integrity of the evidence by demonstrating a complete, unbroken record of every person who had access to it and every action performed on it.

This electronic trail must meticulously document the evidence's full lifespan. According to guidelines from bodies like the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and principles adopted by international investigators, a proper Chain of Custody log must include, at a minimum:

• Unique Identification: A description of the evidence, including hardware serial numbers, file names, and forensic hash values.
• The "Who": The name and title of each individual collecting, handling, or analyzing the evidence.
• The "When": The exact date and time (including time zone) of each transfer or action.
• The "Where": The location of the evidence at all times.
• The "Why" and "How": The purpose for the handling (e.g., "transport to lab," "forensic imaging," "restoration analysis") and the methods or tools used.

Physical evidence bags with integrated Chain of Custody forms are a fundamental tool for documenting the handling and transfer of evidence, ensuring an unbroken trail of accountability.

This documentation creates a verifiable audit trail that proves to the court that the evidence presented is the same as what was originally collected, free from tampering or unauthorized alteration. For digital evidence, this is especially crucial because, unlike a physical object, a digital file can be altered without leaving obvious traces .

Consequences of a Broken Chain

The legal implications of a broken or poorly maintained Chain of Custody are severe and can be catastrophic to a case. If the prosecution cannot prove that the evidence was handled properly and that its integrity is intact, a judge is likely to rule the evidence inadmissible. As one legal blog notes, breaches "can have severe consequences, such as the exclusion of pivotal evidence, potentially leading to the acquittal of guilty parties or the miscarriage of justice" . This is not a procedural technicality; it is a fundamental safeguard that protects the rights of all parties and upholds the credibility of the justice system itself.

The Critical Distinction: Forensic Restoration vs. Inadmissible Alteration

The admissibility of a repaired photograph hinges on a crucial distinction: is the process a scientifically valid restoration of what was originally captured, or is it a manipulative alteration that creates new information? This distinction is not always intuitive and has been the subject of significant legal debate, especially with the rise of powerful new imaging technologies. Understanding this line is paramount for any professional dealing with forensic image repair.

Forensic Restoration (The Goal)

Forensic restoration is the process of repairing technical flaws in a digital file to recover and reveal the original, underlying information that was captured by the camera's sensor at the time of acquisition. The objective is not to make the image "better" or more aesthetically pleasing, but to make it viewable and to accurately represent the data as it was originally recorded. This process addresses damage, not content.

Examples of legitimate forensic restoration include:

• Repairing Corrupted File Headers: A file header tells the computer how to interpret the data that follows. If it's damaged, the file won't open. Repairing it allows the existing, intact pixel data to be displayed correctly.
• Correcting Data Degradation ("Bit Rot"): Over time, stored data can degrade, causing random bits to "flip." This can result in color shifts, pixelated blocks, or other artifacts. Restoration algorithms can sometimes correct these errors based on file structure and surrounding data.
• Reconstructing from Incomplete Files: If a file transfer was interrupted, restoration may involve piecing together the available data to display the partial image that was successfully saved.

The key principle is that no new substantive information is invented. The process is akin to reassembling a shattered vase; the goal is to put the original pieces back in their correct places, not to paint a new design on them.

Image Enhancement (A Gray Area)

Image enhancement sits in a more ambiguous middle ground. It involves techniques applied to an intact, viewable image to improve its overall appearance or make certain features easier to see. Common enhancement techniques include adjusting brightness and contrast, sharpening, and resizing.

Courts have generally found such enhancements admissible under specific, strict conditions. In landmark cases like United States v. Beeler and Nooner v. State of Arkansas, courts ruled that enhancements are permissible if they are verified as reliable representations that simply make the original content clearer and easier to view, without altering its substance . The non-negotiable requirements for admitting enhanced images are:

1. The original, unaltered image must be preserved and entered into evidence for comparison.
2. The entire enhancement process must be meticulously documented, including the software used and every step taken.
3. The process must be repeatable by another qualified expert to verify the results.

As the Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) emphasizes, accurate documentation is necessary to satisfy legal requirements and allow other professionals to "understand the enhancement and produce comparable results" . Enhancement is a tool, but its use must be transparent and scientifically justifiable.

Inadmissible Alteration (The Danger)

Inadmissible alteration occurs when a process adds, removes, or changes the substantive content of an image, creating a depiction of something that was not in the original data. This crosses the line from clarification to fabrication and is the greatest danger in court photo recovery.

The AI "Hallucination" Problem

The most prominent modern example of inadmissible alteration comes from the misuse of Artificial Intelligence (AI) enhancement tools. A pivotal case, State of Washington v. Puloka (2024), highlighted this danger. In this triple homicide case, the defense sought to introduce a video that had been "enhanced" using a commercial AI tool (Topaz Labs AI). The prosecution's forensic video expert successfully argued that the tool did not merely enhance the video; it fundamentally changed it.

The court found that the AI process was opaque (a "black box") and that it "hallucinated" details---it invented new pixels to generate what it *thought* should be there, creating a smoother, clearer, but ultimately false, representation. The expert demonstrated that the AI tool removed original visual information (like motion blur) and added new, fabricated details, making proper forensic analysis impossible . The court ruled the AI-enhanced video inadmissible, stating it "did not accurately show what happened."

This case draws a bright line: forensic processes must be transparent and based on the actual data present. AI tools that use generative models to invent pixels are not performing enhancement; they are creating fictions. This is in stark contrast to traditional, accepted interpolation methods (like bicubic or bilinear) which use mathematical formulas based on surrounding known pixels to enlarge an image in a predictable and reproducible way. The goal of forensic image repair is always restoration of fact, not the creation of a more pleasing or convenient fiction.

The Forensic Workflow: A Step-by-Step Protocol for Court-Admissible Photo Repair

A successful and defensible legal photo repair is not a single action but a systematic, multi-stage process. This workflow is designed to ensure that every step is deliberate, documented, and forensically sound, preserving the integrity of the evidence from start to finish. It follows a model adapted from established digital forensic principles, such as those outlined by the NIJ and SWGDE.

Step 1: Preservation and Forensic Imaging (Do No Harm)

The cardinal rule of digital forensics is: never work on the original evidence. The original media (hard drive, memory card, phone) must be preserved in its pristine, unaltered state. Any analysis or repair must be conducted on a perfect copy.

• Action: Create a Forensic Image. A forensic specialist uses a hardware "write-blocker" to prevent any data from being written to the original evidence device. Then, specialized software like FTK Imager, EnCase Forensic, or Tableau Imager is used to create a bit-for-bit forensic image---an exact, sector-by-sector duplicate of the source media . This copy includes not only active files but also deleted files, file fragments, and unallocated space, preserving all potential evidence.
• Verification: Use Cryptographic Hashes. Immediately after imaging, a cryptographic hash value (typically using algorithms like MD5 and SHA-256) is calculated for both the original media and the newly created forensic image. These algorithms produce a unique digital "fingerprint." If the hashes match, it provides mathematical proof that the copy is identical to the original . This step is the bedrock of evidentiary integrity.

Step 2: Comprehensive Documentation (The Audit Trail)

Documentation is not an afterthought; it begins the moment the evidence is handled and continues through every phase. This creates a complete audit trail that allows the entire process to be scrutinized and, crucially, reproduced.

• Action: Initiate and Maintain a Chain of Custody Log. As discussed previously, a detailed log must track the forensic image and any subsequent copies.
• Document Every Action. The examiner's case notes must be meticulous. According to SWGDE best practices, this documentation should be sufficient for a "similarly trained professional to repeat the steps taken" . This includes:
  • Date and time of each action.
  • The examiner's name and credentials.
  • The specific hardware and software used, including version numbers.
  • The exact commands or steps performed.
  • The rationale behind each decision in the analysis and restoration strategy.

Step 3: Diagnosis of Corruption

Before any repair is attempted, the examiner must diagnose the nature and extent of the damage. This is done by analyzing a working copy of the forensic image, ensuring the original image file remains untouched.

• Action: Analyze the File Structure and Data. Using tools like hex editors and forensic analysis suites, the examiner inspects the file's binary data to identify the problem.
• Common Types of Damage:
  • File System/Header Corruption: The file appears intact, but the metadata that defines its structure is damaged, preventing software from opening it.
  • Data Degradation ("Bit Rot"): Physical or magnetic decay of the storage media has caused random bit errors, leading to visual artifacts like incorrect colors, distorted blocks, or grayed-out areas.
  • Compression Artifacts: Overly aggressive lossy compression (common in JPEGs and some video formats) creates blockiness, blurring, or "mosquito noise" around edges. While not technically "corruption," restoring clarity from these artifacts is a common task.
  • Incomplete File Transfer or Deletion: The file is truncated, containing only a portion of the original image data. Forensic "data carving" techniques may be used to find missing fragments in unallocated disk space.

Step 4: The Restoration Process (The "Repair")

This is the active repair phase, performed on a copy of the forensic image file. The methodology must be scientific, transparent, and justifiable.

The forensic restoration workflow should reverse the order of the defects introduced during the acquisition process. This scientific principle, illustrated by research from Amped Software, ensures that corrections are applied in the proper sequence for accurate results.

• Methodology: The Reverse Workflow Principle. Groundbreaking research co-authored by Amped Software and the University of Florence established a critical principle: the restoration process must reverse the order of defects that occurred during image acquisition. For example, if an image suffered from lens distortion first and then compression artifacts during saving, the restoration should first address the compression artifacts and then correct the lens distortion. Applying filters in the wrong order can lead to inaccurate results.
• Validated Tools: The examiner must use scientifically validated forensic software that is accepted within the digital forensics community. Tools like Amped FIVE, Cognitech's Video Investigator, or ProHawk AI are designed for this purpose, as they automatically log all actions and use tested algorithms. Consumer-grade editors like Adobe Photoshop should be avoided for core restoration, as their processes are not always transparent or designed for forensic rigor. If used at all, every step must be meticulously documented and justified.
• Specific Techniques:
  • Header Repair: Using a hex editor or a specialized tool to manually correct the file's structural data based on known specifications for that file type.
  • Data Carving: Employing software to scan unallocated space on the forensic image for file headers and footers, allowing for the recovery of deleted or fragmented images.
  • Deblocking and Denoising: Applying specific, documented algorithms to reduce compression artifacts or random noise, making underlying details more visible.
  • Pixel/Block Reconstruction: In cases of missing data, some tools can interpolate missing pixels based on surrounding information. This is an interpretive process and must be clearly identified as such in the final report. It borders on enhancement and must be handled with extreme caution.

Step 5: Validation and Reporting

The process does not end with a repaired image. The final steps are to validate the work and produce a comprehensive report that will serve as the foundation for expert testimony.

• Action: Finalize Documentation and Peer Review. The examiner completes their case notes, creating a final, unassailable record of the workflow. Best practice dictates that this entire process---from imaging to the final report---is subjected to a technical peer review by another qualified forensic examiner. This quality control step ensures the methodology is sound, the conclusions are justified, and the results are repeatable.
• Final Report: The Key Deliverable. The ultimate output is not just the repaired photo but a detailed forensic report. This document explains the entire workflow, justifies the methods used, presents the original and repaired images side-by-side, and states the examiner's conclusions. This report is what enables the legal team to understand the evidence and the expert to defend their work in court.

Applying the Protocol: Specialized Cases in Legal Photography

While the general forensic workflow provides a universal framework, its application must be tailored to the unique challenges presented by different types of evidentiary photographs. The context and nature of the image dictate the specific focus of the repair and analysis process.

Crime Scene & Accident Photos

Photographs from crime scenes or accident reconstructions are often used to document the physical environment, the position of evidence, and fine details that may be crucial to the investigation.

• Challenge: The primary challenge is preserving spatial relationships, measurements, and minute details. A blurry photo of a footprint or a distorted image of a tool mark is of little value. The integrity of scale and perspective is paramount.
• Repair Focus: When repairing such images, the focus is on restoring clarity without altering geometric properties. Any enhancement, such as sharpening or contrast adjustment, must be applied globally to the image to avoid selectively emphasizing one area over another. The repair process must not interfere with potential future analysis, such as photogrammetry (also known as mensuration). This is the science of extracting dimensional information from images, such as the height of a suspect or the length of skid marks . An improper repair could render such measurements impossible or inaccurate.

Legal Document Photos

Often, the only available copy of a critical contract, will, or threatening note is a photograph taken with a mobile phone or other device, frequently in poor conditions.

• Challenge: The text on legal document photos may be illegible due to motion blur, poor lighting, low resolution, or awkward angles. The goal is simply to read the words.
• Repair Focus: Restoration techniques are concentrated on maximizing the readability of the existing text. This typically involves careful adjustment of contrast and brightness, sharpening algorithms, and potentially perspective correction to "flatten" the document. The critical ethical and forensic line is that the process aims to make existing characters legible; it must never involve guessing at or reconstructing unreadable characters. The output is what can be definitively read, with any ambiguities noted in the report.

In modern legal proceedings, repaired or enhanced digital evidence is often presented on large monitors, requiring the expert witness to clearly explain the forensic process to the judge and jury.

Medical Images (X-Rays, MRIs)

Medical images used in personal injury, medical malpractice, or assault cases present a unique set of technical and legal challenges.

• Challenge: These images are more than just pictures; they are complex data files, often in the specialized DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine) format. A DICOM file contains not only the visual image but also a vast amount of embedded metadata, including patient information, the date and time of the scan, specific machine settings, and the technician's notes . This metadata is an integral part of the evidence.
• Repair Focus: Any court photo recovery process for a medical image must preserve the integrity of both the image data and its associated metadata. A process that corrupts or strips this metadata could render the evidence useless. The examiner must use tools that understand the DICOM format and ensure that any repairs to the image data (e.g., correcting transmission errors) are performed without affecting the critical metadata. The entire process must be compliant with both forensic and medical imaging standards.

In the Courtroom: Testimony and Documentation

Successfully repairing a photo is only half the battle. The final, decisive test occurs in the courtroom, where the evidence and the process used to restore it must be presented, explained, and defended against legal challenges. This is where the meticulous documentation and scientific rigor of the forensic workflow pay off.

The Role of the Expert Witness

It is a common misconception that the software or the "enhanced" image is the star of the show. In reality, it is the qualified forensic expert who provides the testimony. The expert's role is to bridge the gap between complex technology and legal standards, explaining the process in a way that is clear, credible, and understandable to a non-technical audience of judges and jurors.

The choice of expert is critical. As a guide from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention points out, digital forensics is not an IT function. An IT background alone does not prepare an examiner for the rigors of legal evidence handling . A credible expert witness must possess:

• Specialized Forensic Training: They must understand the legal principles of evidence handling, chain of custody, and admissibility.
• Demonstrable Qualifications: Industry-recognized certifications are key indicators of competence. These may include the Certified Forensic Video Analyst (CFVA) from LEVA, or advanced certifications from bodies like GIAC (e.g., GCFE) or IACIS LEVA, .
• Experience and a Forensic Mindset: The expert must be able to articulate a commitment to objectivity and scientific methodology, distinguishing their work from that of a commercial videographer or graphic artist whose goal is aesthetic appeal, not forensic accuracy.

The Power of the Forensic Report

The expert witness's most powerful tool on the stand is the comprehensive forensic report generated during the workflow. This document is the physical manifestation of the scientific method applied to the evidence. Its power lies in its transparency.

The report should allow the opposing counsel's own expert to take the original forensic image, follow the documented steps, and arrive at the exact same result. This concept of reproducibility is the cornerstone of defending the work against claims of tampering or bias. By laying bare the entire process---the tools, the settings, the decisions---the report demonstrates that the result is not a matter of opinion or artistry, but the outcome of a disciplined, scientific procedure. It transforms the argument from "Trust me, this is what the photo shows" to "Here is the data, here is the repeatable process, and here are the verifiable results."

Surviving a Daubert/Frye Challenge

In U.S. courts, expert testimony based on scientific or technical knowledge is subject to challenges under the Daubert or Frye standards. These legal tests require the proponent to show that the expert's methodology is reliable and generally accepted within the relevant scientific community.

This is where the choices made during the restoration workflow become critical legal defenses:

• Use of Validated Methods: The expert must be prepared to defend the tools and techniques used. Are they part of the curriculum in forensic training programs? Are they described in peer-reviewed literature? Are they recognized by professional organizations like SWGDE or NIST?
• Avoiding "Black Box" Solutions: The expert must be able to explain *how* the process works. This is why the "black box" nature of the AI tool in the Puloka case was fatal to its admissibility. The defense expert could not explain the algorithm or verify its process. In contrast, an expert using a standard deblocking filter can explain the mathematical principles behind it.
• General Acceptance: The relevant scientific community is not "videographers" or "software developers," but forensic video and image analysts. The methods used must be accepted within this specific community of practice. Adherence to published best practices, like those from SWGDE, provides strong evidence of general acceptance.

By building the entire forensic image repair process on a foundation of transparency, documentation, and adherence to community-accepted standards, an expert can confidently withstand these legal challenges and ensure that the restored evidence is seen, understood, and accepted by the court.

Conclusion: Upholding Evidentiary Integrity in the Digital Age

The journey of a damaged digital photograph from a corrupted file to admissible evidence is fraught with peril. The power of photographic evidence is directly proportional to its integrity, and in the digital realm, integrity is a product of a rigorous, disciplined process, not a matter of chance. As we have seen, simply "fixing" a photo is a recipe for legal disaster. The path to admissibility requires a fundamental shift in mindset---from that of a photo editor to that of a forensic scientist.

The principles laid out in this guide form a clear and defensible framework for navigating the complexities of legal photo repair. By adhering to these best practices, legal and investigative professionals can ensure that critical evidence is not only recovered but also fortified against the inevitable scrutiny of the court.

Summary of Best Practices

• Preserve the Original: The sanctity of the original evidence is absolute. Always create a verified, bit-for-bit forensic image using a write-blocker and work only from copies.
• Document Everything: An unbroken Chain of Custody and a meticulous audit trail of every action taken are non-negotiable. The process must be transparent and reproducible.
• Use Validated Methods: Employ scientifically accepted tools and techniques that are recognized within the forensic community. Avoid opaque, experimental, or "black box" processes, especially generative AI, for evidentiary purposes.
• Rely on Qualified Experts: The work must be performed and defended by a qualified forensic examiner with specialized training and credentials, not an IT generalist or a creative professional.
• Be Transparent: The ultimate goal is not to create a perfect picture, but to accurately restore a reliable record of the past. The entire process must be defensible in court.

In the final analysis, the restoration of digital evidence is a profound responsibility. It is a practice dedicated to ensuring that the silent witness of the camera, even when damaged, can still speak its truth in the pursuit of justice. Integrity is, and must always be, paramount.

Preserve Evidence Integrity

Preserve the integrity of your legal evidence. For forensic image repair with full documentation and court-admissible audit trails, explore our Legal Solutions.

References

1. Authentication of Digital Photographs Under the "Pictorial Testimony Theory: A Response to Critics"

2. Admissibility of Digital Photographs in Criminal Cases

3. Image Clarification: Not a Bar to Admissibility

4. Maintaining the Digital Chain of Custody - Challenges to Address

5. [PDF] General Principles for Digital Evidence

6. Best Practices for Chain of Custody in Digital Evidence

7. Best Practices for Documenting Image Enhancement

8. AI Enhanced Video Ruled Inadmissible in US Court

9. Essential Forensic Imaging Tools for Digital Investigations

10. [PDF] Guidelines for Forensic Image Analysis (v2.0)

11. [PDF] Guidelines for Forensic Image Analysis (v1.1)

12. Presenting Medical Images as Evidence; A Strategic Advantage in Trial

13. [PDF] All the Pieces Matter: Evaluating Digital Forensic Expert Witnesses

14. Digital Forensics and Incident Response Certifications | GIAC

15. Computer Vision for Forensics - ProHawk AI

16. Amped FIVE | Forensic Image and Video Enhancement

17. LEVA Certification Program

18. [PDF] Digital Evidence Preservation - NIST Technical Series Publications

19. [PDF] National Institute of Justice Digital Evidence Policies and Procedures

20. Paper About Image Restoration Workflow for Forensic Applications

21. FTK Imager - Forensic Data Imaging and Preview Solution - Exterro