Forensic science has long struggled with “technical instrumentalism,” a crisis where practical efficacy outpaces its intellectual foundation for producing reliable knowledge. This manuscript traces a history from this initial diagnosis toward a formal theory of warranted information. It first explores the ontological response provided by Haq et al., which redefines evidence not as isolated objects but as manifestations of structured change resulting from energy transfer, anchoring forensic inference in the robust reconstruction of events. This ontology is bridged with the concept of f-transforms (natural, cultural, and forensic), which track the sequential reconfiguration of items, asserting that forensic knowledge is transformed, not merely discovered. The inquiry then examines the territory of forensic epistemology, arguing that the discipline's status as a captive profession leads to epistemic dependence and epistemic capture. This structural placement subordinates scientific rigor to institutional and legal priorities, often resulting in corporate mental models that normalize specific interpretations. The paper distinguishes between inevitable scientific uncertainty (rooted in entropy and the material limits of proxy data) and detrimental institutional uncertainty (stemming from governance and the management of the transformation chain). Ultimately, the forensic warrant, the justified authority of a conclusion, is argued to be earned only through transparent management of this entire transformational chain. This requires adopting fiduciary-epistemic duties, including balanced disclosure and active preservation of contestability, to ensure that forensic authority rests on demonstrated logical justification rather than institutional power.
