Jim:

The other side may THINK they have ammunition BUT again until 921 comes out with a FORMAL INTERPRETATION, by NFPA's own rules, one person's OPINION is not any more or less accurate (or better) than another's. You are allowed to deviate from the RECOMMENDATIONS, as long as any deviation is Justified. It is up to the COURTS (Judge or Jury) to decide whether the justification is right or wrong.

We are disagreeing about DESCRIPTIONS of the investigation, NOT the investigation itself. Doug may believe that his personal interpretation of the Scientific Method is correct (and in most cases I would agree), but NFPA 921 is NOT Absolute. It is a Consensus Document subject to revisions every 3-4 years. There are other cases where what was queried is just as accurate DESCRIPTION, using the scientific method. Again, I raise this issue and this is a general description -NOT DIRECTED AT ANYONE SPECIFIC. A witness may follow the scientific method and NFPA 921 and have 15 different titles behind their name and 10 Doctorate degrees, but if you cannot explain it in DESCRIPTIONS in simple terms to an average uninformed client or to an average 10th grade educated jurist, you've already lost. As the former Justice of the Supreme Court of Australia told me personally in a case I was involved in recently.....KISS--Keep It Simple Stupid.

Again, I am not saying don't follow NFPA 921. I agree 100% it is an important document and a long term betterment of the industry. What I am saying is that while I follow 921, IN MY REPORT EXPLANATION I use these terms to DESCRIBE (for simplicity purposes) to the reader, the synopsis of the INVESTIGATION (using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD) in simpler terms that they can understand.
Chris