There is no reason to presume they did their own validation correctly absent proof of same.

Hopefully they have to have demonstrated some level of quality to be used as legal evidence in convicting someone. Although, I would hope "code analysis" is an infinitesimal part of the validation with the majority being real world end to end tests. (e.g. we can take 10,000 samples, divide them in two, mix them, then use our tool to pair up the samples with 100% accuracy).

I think this is the crux of the problem. If the defendant gets to decide when validation is sufficient then should they ever say it is sufficient?

When the jury agrees the evidence is there beyond a reasonable doubt. No one should trust any black box when it comes to criminal prosecution.

So the prosecution can present its case and say they gave the defendant the code for 9 months and here are five other independent reviews. The defense can argue they needed more time. The jury then decides if there is reasonable doubt.

If the company can't show that the process has been independantly validated it probably should be tossed before the jury hears it.

There are papers that do validation of TrueAllelle. I don't know the product well enough to know if it is the same one used in the article, but there isn't info in the article to know if independent validation was done or not.

>presumably

>their own validation

That is not how things are proven.

“You don’t need to know how we came to this scientific conclusion.” An appeal to authority doesn’t fly in science and it certainly doesn’t in law.