Which standard is NOT a criterion for determining substantial evidence in a report?

In evaluating the concepts of substantial evidence within a report, understanding the criteria that explicitly support the integrity and reliability of the findings is crucial. The standard that the examination report should not rely solely on the examiner's opinion is pivotal to maintaining objectivity. Substantial evidence requires that opinions are not just arbitrary but grounded in reasonable medical probability, which means they must be supported by facts, data, and logical reasoning.

When a report includes adequate medical histories and sets forth the reasoning behind the conclusions, it provides a framework that helps to validate the opinions expressed within. Such practices enhance the credibility of the report by integrating comprehensive patient information and logical thought processes that connect the clinical findings to the conclusions drawn.

Thus, the notion that a report can be deemed substantial evidence without reliance merely on subjective opinions reaffirms the necessity of a structured, evidence-based approach in medical evaluations. This ensures that the evaluations serve their purpose effectively, promoting accuracy and fairness in the assessment process.