[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":785},["ShallowReactive",2],{"article-blockchain-evidence-admissibility":3,"content-query-VnHSeUEsFW":456},{"_path":4,"_dir":5,"_draft":6,"_partial":6,"_locale":7,"title":8,"description":9,"slug":10,"date":11,"lastUpdated":12,"author":13,"readingTime":14,"category":15,"tags":16,"ogImage":23,"featured":6,"body":24,"_type":449,"_id":450,"_source":451,"_file":452,"_stem":453,"_extension":454,"sitemap":455},"\u002Farticles\u002F04-blockchain-evidence-admissibility","articles",false,"","Blockchain Evidence in Litigation: Admissibility and Best Practices","A practitioner's guide to the evidentiary standards governing blockchain evidence under Federal Rules and Missouri law, including authentication, Daubert, and chain of custody.","blockchain-evidence-admissibility","2026-04-17","2025-04-17","Nick Kampe",11,"Legal Reference",[17,18,19,20,21,22],"evidence","admissibility","FRE 901","FRE 902","Daubert","authentication","\u002Fog\u002Fblockchain-evidence-admissibility.png",{"type":25,"children":26,"toc":437},"root",[27,35,40,47,52,57,62,67,73,78,83,88,93,99,104,109,114,125,135,145,155,161,166,171,176,182,187,192,197,202,208,213,223,233,243,253,259,264,278,291,296,301,306,312,317,322,341,345,351,359,364,372,377,385,390,398,403,411,416,424],{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":30,"children":31},"element","p",{},[32],{"type":33,"value":34},"text","Blockchain evidence is now appearing in a wide range of civil and criminal matters, from divorce proceedings to commercial fraud claims to securities enforcement. For attorneys on either side of those matters, understanding the evidentiary framework that governs this evidence is no longer optional. The rules that apply to blockchain records are not new rules invented for cryptocurrency; they are the same authentication and reliability standards that apply to any form of electronic evidence, interpreted and applied to a novel type of record.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":36,"children":37},{},[38],{"type":33,"value":39},"This article addresses how the Federal Rules of Evidence govern blockchain evidence, how Missouri's evidence rules approach the same issues, what courts have looked for in expert testimony about blockchain data, and what practical steps attorneys and their forensic experts should take to preserve and present this evidence effectively.",{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":42,"children":44},"h2",{"id":43},"authentication-under-fre-901",[45],{"type":33,"value":46},"Authentication Under FRE 901",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":48,"children":49},{},[50],{"type":33,"value":51},"Federal Rule of Evidence 901 requires that any piece of evidence be authenticated before it can be admitted. Authentication means producing evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what its proponent claims it is. For blockchain evidence, that typically means demonstrating that a particular transaction record or address history accurately reflects what occurred on the blockchain.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":53,"children":54},{},[55],{"type":33,"value":56},"Authentication of blockchain records can proceed under FRE 901(b)(1) through witness testimony: an expert or a knowledgeable lay witness can testify that the records were retrieved from a reliable source, using a reliable method, and that the results accurately represent the blockchain data. The witness should be able to describe how the data was collected, from which tools or sources, and what steps were taken to verify its accuracy.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":58,"children":59},{},[60],{"type":33,"value":61},"Authentication can also proceed through comparison under FRE 901(b)(3): a person familiar with blockchain data can compare the records in evidence with data retrieved independently from the same blockchain to confirm consistency. Because public blockchains are open to inspection, any party or expert can reproduce the query and verify that the results match. This is a significant advantage over evidence types that require access to a single authoritative source.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":63,"children":64},{},[65],{"type":33,"value":66},"FRE 901(b)(9) provides for authentication through evidence about the process or system that produced the item, showing that the process or system produces an accurate result. For blockchain forensic tools and block explorers, this avenue requires establishing that the software used to query and present the blockchain data is reliable and that the output can be trusted. Commercial blockchain forensic tools that are widely used in law enforcement and civil practice can typically be authenticated through their documentation, validation studies, and the expert's testimony about their methodology.",{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":68,"children":70},{"id":69},"self-authentication-under-fre-902",[71],{"type":33,"value":72},"Self-Authentication Under FRE 902",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":74,"children":75},{},[76],{"type":33,"value":77},"Federal Rule of Evidence 902 identifies categories of evidence that are self-authenticating, meaning they require no extrinsic evidence to be admitted. Two provisions added to Rule 902 in 2017 are particularly relevant to digital evidence.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":79,"children":80},{},[81],{"type":33,"value":82},"FRE 902(13) provides for self-authentication of certified records generated by an electronic process or system. If the proponent provides a qualified person's certification that the process or system that produced the record was accurate and reliable, and that the process was appropriately configured and functioning at the time of the record's creation, the record is self-authenticating. This provision can apply to records exported from block explorers or blockchain forensic platforms when accompanied by appropriate certification.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":84,"children":85},{},[86],{"type":33,"value":87},"FRE 902(14) covers certified data copied from an electronic device, storage medium, or file, when accompanied by a certification meeting specific requirements. This provision is most directly applicable to records extracted from a device during digital forensic examination, but it can also apply to digital records of blockchain data collected and certified as an accurate copy.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":89,"children":90},{},[91],{"type":33,"value":92},"Practitioners planning to rely on these provisions should be aware that the certification requirements are specific. A declaration from an expert that simply says the records are accurate is not sufficient. The certification must address the process by which the records were generated and copied, and must comply with the form requirements of Rule 902.",{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":94,"children":96},{"id":95},"expert-testimony-under-fre-702-and-the-daubert-standard",[97],{"type":33,"value":98},"Expert Testimony Under FRE 702 and the Daubert Standard",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":100,"children":101},{},[102],{"type":33,"value":103},"In federal courts, expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which requires that the expert's opinion be based on sufficient facts or data, that the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and that the expert has reliably applied those principles and methods to the facts of the case.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":105,"children":106},{},[107],{"type":33,"value":108},"The Supreme Court's 2023 amendments to Rule 702 clarified that the proponent of expert testimony bears the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of evidence that the requirements are met. This places the foundational question firmly with the court at a gatekeeping level rather than treating reliability arguments as purely for the jury.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":110,"children":111},{},[112],{"type":33,"value":113},"The Daubert factors, first articulated in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and subsequently developed in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, provide the analytical framework for evaluating whether an expert's methodology is reliable. Applied to blockchain forensic testimony, the relevant factors include:",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":115,"children":116},{},[117,123],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":119,"children":120},"strong",{},[121],{"type":33,"value":122},"Has the methodology been tested?",{"type":33,"value":124}," Blockchain tracing techniques, particularly address clustering heuristics, have been applied in thousands of law enforcement and civil investigations. Commercial forensic tools used for blockchain analysis have been validated against known outcomes and subjected to peer review within the forensic community. The core techniques are not novel speculative methods; they are established analytical practices.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":126,"children":127},{},[128,133],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":129,"children":130},{},[131],{"type":33,"value":132},"Has the methodology been subject to peer review?",{"type":33,"value":134}," Academic and practitioner literature on blockchain forensic techniques is substantial. The foundational clustering heuristics appear in published computer science research. The leading commercial tools publish methodological documentation that has been reviewed and tested by researchers and practitioners.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":136,"children":137},{},[138,143],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":139,"children":140},{},[141],{"type":33,"value":142},"What is the known or potential error rate?",{"type":33,"value":144}," Clustering heuristics can produce false positives in specific circumstances, such as certain coinjoin or mixing transactions. A qualified expert should be able to identify and address these limitations, and should not claim a zero error rate. Acknowledging the conditions under which false positives can arise, and explaining why those conditions are or are not present in the specific case, is characteristic of reliable expert testimony.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":146,"children":147},{},[148,153],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":149,"children":150},{},[151],{"type":33,"value":152},"Is the methodology generally accepted in the relevant community?",{"type":33,"value":154}," Blockchain forensic techniques are used extensively by law enforcement agencies, financial intelligence units, and civil forensic practitioners. The techniques are generally accepted within the forensic community, though the specific tools and the specific conclusions drawn from them remain subject to critical evaluation in each case.",{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":156,"children":158},{"id":157},"missouri-rules-of-evidence",[159],{"type":33,"value":160},"Missouri Rules of Evidence",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":162,"children":163},{},[164],{"type":33,"value":165},"Missouri has adopted evidence rules that largely parallel the Federal Rules of Evidence, with some procedural differences. Missouri Rule 101 through its rules on expert testimony reflect a reliability standard for expert opinions that functions similarly to the Daubert framework. Missouri courts evaluate expert testimony based on whether the expert is qualified and whether the opinion is based on a reliable methodology and sufficient data.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":167,"children":168},{},[169],{"type":33,"value":170},"Missouri has adopted provisions addressing electronic records and digital evidence that operate similarly to their federal counterparts. The authentication of electronic records in Missouri follows the same basic structure: the proponent must produce sufficient evidence to support a finding that the record is what it purports to be, whether through witness testimony, comparison, or certification of the generating process.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":172,"children":173},{},[174],{"type":33,"value":175},"For practitioners in Missouri state courts, the key practical difference from federal practice is that Missouri courts may be encountering blockchain evidence for the first time in some proceedings. Judges who have not previously considered blockchain records may benefit from a more thorough foundational showing than would be required in a federal forum where blockchain evidence has become more common. Taking the time to explain the underlying technology clearly, and to establish the methodology's reliability through the expert's testimony, is worth the investment.",{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":177,"children":179},{"id":178},"chain-of-custody-for-digital-evidence",[180],{"type":33,"value":181},"Chain of Custody for Digital Evidence",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":183,"children":184},{},[185],{"type":33,"value":186},"Chain of custody for blockchain evidence has two distinct components. The first is the immutability of the blockchain itself. Because the blockchain is a distributed ledger maintained by thousands of independent nodes, the transaction history of any address is permanent and cannot be altered without detection. An analyst retrieving Bitcoin transaction data today retrieves the same transaction history that has always existed for that address. This gives blockchain records an inherent integrity that many other forms of evidence lack.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":188,"children":189},{},[190],{"type":33,"value":191},"The second component is the analyst's own collection and documentation process. Even though the blockchain's underlying data cannot be altered, the specific records that the analyst extracted, the tools used to extract them, the queries run, and the parameters applied must be documented in a way that allows reproduction and verification. An analyst who queried a block explorer on a specific date should document the date, the tool used, the specific queries or searches performed, and the results obtained. Hash values of collected data, where applicable, provide a cryptographic verification that the data has not been modified since collection.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":193,"children":194},{},[195],{"type":33,"value":196},"This documentation serves multiple purposes. It allows opposing counsel's expert to reproduce the analysis and verify the results. It supports the expert's testimony about the methodology. And it provides the foundation for any self-authentication claim under FRE 902(13) or (14).",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":198,"children":199},{},[200],{"type":33,"value":201},"Best practices for preserving blockchain evidence include: exporting data from block explorers or forensic tools in a reproducible format, documenting the collection date and time, using forensic tools that produce audit logs of the queries performed, and maintaining copies of the raw data exports alongside any analytical products derived from them.",{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":203,"children":205},{"id":204},"common-challenges-to-blockchain-evidence",[206],{"type":33,"value":207},"Common Challenges to Blockchain Evidence",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":209,"children":210},{},[211],{"type":33,"value":212},"Opposing counsel challenging blockchain evidence will typically focus on one or more of the following:",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":214,"children":215},{},[216,221],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":217,"children":218},{},[219],{"type":33,"value":220},"Authentication gaps.",{"type":33,"value":222}," If the analyst cannot adequately explain where the data came from, what tool produced it, and how its accuracy was verified, an authentication challenge has traction. The response is thorough documentation of the collection methodology before the challenge is raised.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":224,"children":225},{},[226,231],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":227,"children":228},{},[229],{"type":33,"value":230},"Attribution overreach.",{"type":33,"value":232}," The most common substantive challenge is that the analyst's opinion overstates the connection between a blockchain address and a specific individual. An analyst who says \"the blockchain proves that the defendant controlled this wallet\" without a clear attribution chain is vulnerable. An analyst who says \"the exchange record shows that this address was associated with the defendant's account, and the blockchain shows that funds from this address moved to these subsequent addresses\" presents a defensible, layered opinion.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":234,"children":235},{},[236,241],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":237,"children":238},{},[239],{"type":33,"value":240},"Tool reliability.",{"type":33,"value":242}," Challenges to the reliability of specific blockchain forensic software tools can be raised under Daubert. The response requires documentation of the tool's validation, its acceptance in the forensic community, and the expert's qualifications to use and interpret it.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":244,"children":245},{},[246,251],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":247,"children":248},{},[249],{"type":33,"value":250},"Heuristic limitations.",{"type":33,"value":252}," Challenges to clustering heuristics, arguing that the identified addresses may not all belong to the same controller, require technical knowledge to mount effectively. An expert who has already addressed these limitations in their report and testimony is in a stronger position than one who presents the heuristics as infallible.",{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":254,"children":256},{"id":255},"laying-the-foundation-best-practices",[257],{"type":33,"value":258},"Laying the Foundation: Best Practices",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":260,"children":261},{},[262],{"type":33,"value":263},"For attorneys planning to introduce blockchain evidence, the following practices improve the likelihood of admission and effective use:",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":265,"children":266},{},[267,269,276],{"type":33,"value":268},"Retain a qualified forensic expert early. Early engagement allows the expert to participate in developing the discovery strategy, identify the most useful sources of evidence, and produce a report that is structured for use in the proceeding. See ",{"type":28,"tag":270,"props":271,"children":273},"a",{"href":272},"\u002Fservices",[274],{"type":33,"value":275},"ConsensusIntel's services",{"type":33,"value":277}," for detail on how forensic engagements are structured.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":279,"children":280},{},[281,283,289],{"type":33,"value":282},"Serve discovery requests that specifically address cryptocurrency. Generic financial disclosure requests may not capture digital assets. Interrogatories should ask specifically about wallets, exchange accounts, and transactions. Requests for production should address all device types on which wallet software might have been installed. For guidance on subpoenaing exchanges, see ",{"type":28,"tag":270,"props":284,"children":286},{"href":285},"\u002Fresources\u002Fsubpoenaing-cryptocurrency-exchange-records",[287],{"type":33,"value":288},"Subpoenaing Cryptocurrency Exchange Records",{"type":33,"value":290},".",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":292,"children":293},{},[294],{"type":33,"value":295},"Coordinate between the blockchain forensic expert and the digital forensic examiner (if different people). The on-chain analysis and the device forensics need to tell a consistent story. Information that appears on the device, such as a wallet application's locally stored transaction history, should be reconcilable with the on-chain record.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":297,"children":298},{},[299],{"type":33,"value":300},"Provide the expert with a complete picture of the facts known from other sources. The on-chain analysis is most powerful when it is placed in context: exchange records that confirm account ownership, financial records that show purchase history, communications that mention cryptocurrency. These connections transform a technical blockchain analysis into a coherent evidentiary narrative.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":302,"children":303},{},[304],{"type":33,"value":305},"Document everything the expert does, as they do it. Reports produced after the analysis is complete are easier to challenge than contemporaneous records of the analytical process. A good forensic report includes a methodology section that functions as a contemporaneous account of how the analysis was performed.",{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":307,"children":309},{"id":308},"what-makes-blockchain-evidence-compelling-in-practice",[310],{"type":33,"value":311},"What Makes Blockchain Evidence Compelling in Practice",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":313,"children":314},{},[315],{"type":33,"value":316},"Beyond technical admissibility, blockchain evidence is compelling when it is presented clearly. Judges and jurors do not need to understand cryptographic hashing to follow a transaction flow. Visualizations of the movement of funds, clear explanations of what specific transactions show, and plain-language summaries of the analyst's conclusions make technical evidence accessible without sacrificing accuracy.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":318,"children":319},{},[320],{"type":33,"value":321},"The goal of expert testimony is not to demonstrate technical sophistication. It is to help the trier of fact understand the relevant facts. Analysts who can explain blockchain evidence in plain, precise terms, and who are clearly comfortable acknowledging the limits of what they can establish, are more persuasive than analysts who present an impenetrable technical recitation.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":323,"children":324},{},[325,331,333,339],{"type":28,"tag":270,"props":326,"children":328},{"href":327},"\u002Fabout",[329],{"type":33,"value":330},"ConsensusIntel",{"type":33,"value":332}," prepares forensic reports and expert testimony specifically for legal audiences. For questions about how blockchain evidence might be addressed in your matter, ",{"type":28,"tag":270,"props":334,"children":336},{"href":335},"\u002Fcontact",[337],{"type":33,"value":338},"contact us",{"type":33,"value":340}," to discuss the specifics.",{"type":28,"tag":342,"props":343,"children":344},"hr",{},[],{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":346,"children":348},{"id":347},"frequently-asked-questions",[349],{"type":33,"value":350},"Frequently Asked Questions",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":352,"children":353},{},[354],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":355,"children":356},{},[357],{"type":33,"value":358},"Does blockchain evidence require expert testimony to be admitted?",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":360,"children":361},{},[362],{"type":33,"value":363},"Not always. Blockchain records can sometimes be introduced through lay witness testimony or self-authentication, depending on how they are used. But in most contested matters involving technical analysis of blockchain data, expert testimony is necessary both to authenticate the evidence and to explain what it means. A block explorer printout without expert context tells a court very little.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":365,"children":366},{},[367],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":368,"children":369},{},[370],{"type":33,"value":371},"What qualifications should a blockchain forensic expert have?",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":373,"children":374},{},[375],{"type":33,"value":376},"Relevant qualifications include substantive experience with blockchain forensic tools and methodologies, a track record of applying them in prior investigations or proceedings, and the ability to explain technical findings clearly to a legal audience. Formal certifications in digital forensics, a background in computer science or cryptography, and prior experience with legal proceedings are all relevant. The specific weight of each credential depends on the court and the nature of the opinion.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":378,"children":379},{},[380],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":381,"children":382},{},[383],{"type":33,"value":384},"Can the opposing party reproduce a blockchain analysis independently?",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":386,"children":387},{},[388],{"type":33,"value":389},"Yes. Because public blockchains are open to inspection, any qualified expert can retrieve the same data and verify whether the analysis is accurate. This reproducibility is one of the strongest features of blockchain evidence. If the original analyst's work is sound, independent reproduction will confirm it. If it is not, independent reproduction will expose the problems.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":391,"children":392},{},[393],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":394,"children":395},{},[396],{"type":33,"value":397},"What is a hash value and why does it matter for evidence?",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":399,"children":400},{},[401],{"type":33,"value":402},"A hash value is a fixed-length string produced by a cryptographic function applied to a file or dataset. Any change to the underlying data, no matter how small, produces a completely different hash value. Recording the hash value of collected evidence at the time of collection creates a verifiable record that the data has not been altered since it was collected. This is a standard practice in digital forensics and supports chain of custody arguments.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":404,"children":405},{},[406],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":407,"children":408},{},[409],{"type":33,"value":410},"How should blockchain evidence be disclosed in discovery?",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":412,"children":413},{},[414],{"type":33,"value":415},"Blockchain forensic analysis that will be offered through an expert should be disclosed in accordance with the applicable expert disclosure rules, including the timing requirements and the contents of the expert report. The report should contain a complete methodology description, the data on which the analysis was based, and the specific opinions to be offered. Raw data exports should be preserved and available for review by opposing experts.",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":417,"children":418},{},[419],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":420,"children":421},{},[422],{"type":33,"value":423},"What if the opposing party's expert reaches different conclusions?",{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":425,"children":426},{},[427,429,435],{"type":33,"value":428},"Competing expert opinions on blockchain evidence are resolved through the same process as any other battle of experts: cross-examination, the credibility of each expert's methodology, and the quality of each expert's documentation. An analyst who has thoroughly documented their methodology and can clearly explain the basis for their conclusions is in a stronger position when challenged. See ",{"type":28,"tag":270,"props":430,"children":432},{"href":431},"\u002Fresources\u002Fcommon-mistakes-crypto-investigations",[433],{"type":33,"value":434},"Common Mistakes in Cryptocurrency Investigations",{"type":33,"value":436}," for the errors that make expert testimony vulnerable.",{"title":7,"searchDepth":438,"depth":438,"links":439},2,[440,441,442,443,444,445,446,447,448],{"id":43,"depth":438,"text":46},{"id":69,"depth":438,"text":72},{"id":95,"depth":438,"text":98},{"id":157,"depth":438,"text":160},{"id":178,"depth":438,"text":181},{"id":204,"depth":438,"text":207},{"id":255,"depth":438,"text":258},{"id":308,"depth":438,"text":311},{"id":347,"depth":438,"text":350},"markdown","content:articles:04-blockchain-evidence-admissibility.md","content","articles\u002F04-blockchain-evidence-admissibility.md","articles\u002F04-blockchain-evidence-admissibility","md",{"loc":4},{"_path":4,"_dir":5,"_draft":6,"_partial":6,"_locale":7,"title":8,"description":9,"slug":10,"date":11,"lastUpdated":12,"author":13,"readingTime":14,"category":15,"tags":457,"ogImage":23,"featured":6,"body":458,"_type":449,"_id":450,"_source":451,"_file":452,"_stem":453,"_extension":454,"sitemap":784},[17,18,19,20,21,22],{"type":25,"children":459,"toc":773},[460,464,468,472,476,480,484,488,492,496,500,504,508,512,516,520,524,532,540,548,556,560,564,568,572,576,580,584,588,592,596,600,608,616,624,632,636,640,649,658,662,666,670,674,678,682,695,698,702,709,713,720,724,731,735,742,746,753,757,764],{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":461,"children":462},{},[463],{"type":33,"value":34},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":465,"children":466},{},[467],{"type":33,"value":39},{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":469,"children":470},{"id":43},[471],{"type":33,"value":46},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":473,"children":474},{},[475],{"type":33,"value":51},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":477,"children":478},{},[479],{"type":33,"value":56},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":481,"children":482},{},[483],{"type":33,"value":61},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":485,"children":486},{},[487],{"type":33,"value":66},{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":489,"children":490},{"id":69},[491],{"type":33,"value":72},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":493,"children":494},{},[495],{"type":33,"value":77},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":497,"children":498},{},[499],{"type":33,"value":82},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":501,"children":502},{},[503],{"type":33,"value":87},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":505,"children":506},{},[507],{"type":33,"value":92},{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":509,"children":510},{"id":95},[511],{"type":33,"value":98},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":513,"children":514},{},[515],{"type":33,"value":103},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":517,"children":518},{},[519],{"type":33,"value":108},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":521,"children":522},{},[523],{"type":33,"value":113},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":525,"children":526},{},[527,531],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":528,"children":529},{},[530],{"type":33,"value":122},{"type":33,"value":124},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":533,"children":534},{},[535,539],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":536,"children":537},{},[538],{"type":33,"value":132},{"type":33,"value":134},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":541,"children":542},{},[543,547],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":544,"children":545},{},[546],{"type":33,"value":142},{"type":33,"value":144},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":549,"children":550},{},[551,555],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":552,"children":553},{},[554],{"type":33,"value":152},{"type":33,"value":154},{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":557,"children":558},{"id":157},[559],{"type":33,"value":160},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":561,"children":562},{},[563],{"type":33,"value":165},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":565,"children":566},{},[567],{"type":33,"value":170},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":569,"children":570},{},[571],{"type":33,"value":175},{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":573,"children":574},{"id":178},[575],{"type":33,"value":181},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":577,"children":578},{},[579],{"type":33,"value":186},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":581,"children":582},{},[583],{"type":33,"value":191},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":585,"children":586},{},[587],{"type":33,"value":196},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":589,"children":590},{},[591],{"type":33,"value":201},{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":593,"children":594},{"id":204},[595],{"type":33,"value":207},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":597,"children":598},{},[599],{"type":33,"value":212},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":601,"children":602},{},[603,607],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":604,"children":605},{},[606],{"type":33,"value":220},{"type":33,"value":222},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":609,"children":610},{},[611,615],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":612,"children":613},{},[614],{"type":33,"value":230},{"type":33,"value":232},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":617,"children":618},{},[619,623],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":620,"children":621},{},[622],{"type":33,"value":240},{"type":33,"value":242},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":625,"children":626},{},[627,631],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":628,"children":629},{},[630],{"type":33,"value":250},{"type":33,"value":252},{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":633,"children":634},{"id":255},[635],{"type":33,"value":258},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":637,"children":638},{},[639],{"type":33,"value":263},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":641,"children":642},{},[643,644,648],{"type":33,"value":268},{"type":28,"tag":270,"props":645,"children":646},{"href":272},[647],{"type":33,"value":275},{"type":33,"value":277},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":650,"children":651},{},[652,653,657],{"type":33,"value":282},{"type":28,"tag":270,"props":654,"children":655},{"href":285},[656],{"type":33,"value":288},{"type":33,"value":290},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":659,"children":660},{},[661],{"type":33,"value":295},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":663,"children":664},{},[665],{"type":33,"value":300},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":667,"children":668},{},[669],{"type":33,"value":305},{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":671,"children":672},{"id":308},[673],{"type":33,"value":311},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":675,"children":676},{},[677],{"type":33,"value":316},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":679,"children":680},{},[681],{"type":33,"value":321},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":683,"children":684},{},[685,689,690,694],{"type":28,"tag":270,"props":686,"children":687},{"href":327},[688],{"type":33,"value":330},{"type":33,"value":332},{"type":28,"tag":270,"props":691,"children":692},{"href":335},[693],{"type":33,"value":338},{"type":33,"value":340},{"type":28,"tag":342,"props":696,"children":697},{},[],{"type":28,"tag":41,"props":699,"children":700},{"id":347},[701],{"type":33,"value":350},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":703,"children":704},{},[705],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":706,"children":707},{},[708],{"type":33,"value":358},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":710,"children":711},{},[712],{"type":33,"value":363},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":714,"children":715},{},[716],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":717,"children":718},{},[719],{"type":33,"value":371},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":721,"children":722},{},[723],{"type":33,"value":376},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":725,"children":726},{},[727],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":728,"children":729},{},[730],{"type":33,"value":384},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":732,"children":733},{},[734],{"type":33,"value":389},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":736,"children":737},{},[738],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":739,"children":740},{},[741],{"type":33,"value":397},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":743,"children":744},{},[745],{"type":33,"value":402},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":747,"children":748},{},[749],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":750,"children":751},{},[752],{"type":33,"value":410},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":754,"children":755},{},[756],{"type":33,"value":415},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":758,"children":759},{},[760],{"type":28,"tag":118,"props":761,"children":762},{},[763],{"type":33,"value":423},{"type":28,"tag":29,"props":765,"children":766},{},[767,768,772],{"type":33,"value":428},{"type":28,"tag":270,"props":769,"children":770},{"href":431},[771],{"type":33,"value":434},{"type":33,"value":436},{"title":7,"searchDepth":438,"depth":438,"links":774},[775,776,777,778,779,780,781,782,783],{"id":43,"depth":438,"text":46},{"id":69,"depth":438,"text":72},{"id":95,"depth":438,"text":98},{"id":157,"depth":438,"text":160},{"id":178,"depth":438,"text":181},{"id":204,"depth":438,"text":207},{"id":255,"depth":438,"text":258},{"id":308,"depth":438,"text":311},{"id":347,"depth":438,"text":350},{"loc":4},1779289486700]