The statement in the question matchesSWGDE Principle 1, Standards and Criteria 1.7, which explicitly requires thatany action that could alter, damage, or destroy original digital evidence must be performed by qualified personnel in a forensically sound manner. In digital forensics doctrine, this requirement exists because digital evidence is highly fragile: routine interactions (booting a system, opening a file, connecting storage, running commands) can change timestamps, overwrite unallocated space, modify logs, or trigger encryption/key rotation. SWGDE's emphasis on "qualified persons" and "forensically sound manner" aligns with core evidentiary expectations: minimizing changes to original media, using controlled and repeatable methods (e.g., write-blocking, validated imaging, documented procedures), and ensuring actions are defensible under scrutiny.
Options 1.1, 1.3, and 1.5 relate to broader quality and procedural requirements (quality systems, SOP review, appropriate tools), but they do not contain the specific mandate about potentially altering original evidence.
The exact phrasing about alteration/damage/destruction and qualified handling is associated withStandards and Criteria 1.7, makingBthe correct choice.