<![CDATA[The article examines the methodological and procedural conditions under which the use of a computer polygraph within the framework of forensic psychological expert research at the stage of pre-trial investigation can be considered scientifically justified and procedurally acceptable. The study was implemented in the format of a sequential mixed design: in stage A, a quantitative content analysis of 60 depersonalized conclusions/reports of polygraph examinations in criminal proceedings was carried out, and in stage B, a two-wave structured survey of the expert community (N = 110; polygraph examiners, forensic psychologists/experts, investigators/prosecutors, lawyers) was conducted to form a consensus on a minimum standard. The quality of documentation was operationalized through the methodological transparency index (MPI) and the procedural compliance index (PCI). The reports were found to be moderately transparent (MPI M = 44.2) and marginally compliant (PCI M = 38.4), with moderate correlation between the indices (r = .54; p < .001), indicating incomplete agreement between the methodological and procedural components. Systemic deficiencies in documentation were identified, including the lack of alternative explanations for responses, countermeasures, and evidence of test invalidity; CIT/GKT documents showed higher MPI and PCI than CQT. Phase B results showed an acceptable level of agreement (Kendall’s W = .74) and a consensus minimum standard of 11 criteria was developed. A comparison of the stages revealed a significant gap between practice and the normatively expected standard, which outlines priorities for unifying documentation and increasing the evidentiary reliability of results.]]>
