What could be considered impeachment evidence against an experienced examiner with a history of good performance?

Impeachment evidence serves to challenge the credibility of a witness or an individual's professional record. In the context of an experienced examiner with a history of good performance, a series of corrective action reports would be significant because they indicate a pattern of issues that could impact the examiner's reliability or thoroughness. Even a previously high-performing individual can face challenges, and documents outlining corrective actions taken against them serve as formal acknowledgment of specific shortcomings or misconduct in their work.

In contrast, a noted criticism from peers may not carry the same weight as documented corrective actions, as it could be more subjective and less formal. Changes in administrative procedures could impact how work is conducted but do not directly address the examiner's performance or behavior. Lastly, the absence of evidence would not contribute to impeachment, as it lacks the necessary component of highlighting potential issues or inconsistencies in the examiner's record. Thus, the presence of corrective action reports points to documented concerns that could effectively impeach the examiner's credibility and integrity.