Abstract
<jats:p>Ignitable-liquid residue (ILR) analysis can provide powerful chemical evidence, but its forensic meaning depends on the integrity demonstrated before analysis. Volatile loss, alteration, contamination, transfer, background contribution, sampling limitations and missing context may restrict how far an observation from the analysed material can defensibly extend. Drawing on standards, forensic guidance and ILRspecific literature, this narrative review develops a claim-restriction framework for decision-grade reporting. The framework uses five record-based dimensions—identity, continuity, condition, context and control—to support four case-specific statuses: demonstrated integrity, administrative nonconformity, qualified deficit (NR-Qualified) and blocking deficit (NR-Fatal). These statuses indicate whether an observation can support an item-level, scene-linked or broader forensic claim, or whether the claim must be qualified, restricted or withheld beyond observation. The proposed chain is evidence condition → integrity status → permissible claim space → reporting language. The framework does not replace validated analytical methods, laboratory quality systems, probabilistic interpretation or expert judgement. Nor is it a sampling protocol, reporting template or automatic decision rule. Its purpose is to make explicit the boundary between analytical validity and evidential integrity. Where the record supports the intended claim, probative value should not be diluted unnecessarily. Where a relevant deficit remains bounded or unbounded, reporting should remain within the corresponding defensible claim space. Decision-grade reporting therefore aligns what was analysed, what was demonstrated and what is finally claimed.</jats:p>