en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admissible_evidence

In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court said that, when assessing scientific expert testimony, courts may consider five kinds of considerations: whether the theory or technique can be tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate, the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation, and whether it has gained acceptance in the relevant scientific community. The article's list omits that fourth consideration about standards/controls and therefore incorrectly says the Court laid out only four factors.

This is also reflected in the Advisory Committee Note to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which summarizes the "specific factors explicated by the Daubert Court" as a five-factor checklist, again including "the existence and maintenance of standards and controls."

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, documentary evidence is authenticated when the proponent offers evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Rule 901 then gives multiple examples of how that can be done, including testimony of a witness with knowledge, distinctive characteristics, public-record evidence, ancient-document evidence, and other methods. It does not impose a blanket requirement that every document be traced by a chain of custody from the original author to the present holder.

The article's statement is contradicted even more clearly by Rule 902, which lists many categories of self-authenticating documents that "require no extrinsic evidence of authenticity in order to be admitted," such as certified public records, official publications, newspapers and periodicals, acknowledged documents, and certain business records. Because some documentary evidence is self-authenticating and other documents can be authenticated by methods other than chain of custody, the article's categorical statement is inaccurate.