This is an actual report that was prepared for our opposition in a recent case. There are numerous instances of incorrect testing methods as well as misused or nonexistant technical terms. But we think that the first thing the layperson will notice is that it is very poorly written. In many places it is very difficult to tell what the writer means.
Judges don't have the time or the inclination to try to decipher a report like this one. They are also much more likely to be receptive to an argument that isn't puffed up with unnecessary (and often misused) jargon.