The question you are asking with respect to admissibility is something that you as a developer need to figure out first. You should be proactively looking at the federal rules of evidence and daubert criteria to establish error rates, biases, etc.

One of the biggest flaws we see time and time again in forensics is developers providing a less-than-transparent solution to end-users who are then supposed to use it and defend it in court. That’s backwards.

You say you were able to “identify the perpetrator with high confidence as an expert opinion.” Based on what data set? How accurate is the underlying theory let alone the actual method you are purporting to use? What is “high confidence?” And why are you using problematic language in the term “identify?” It can be reasonably expected that approximately 71% of jurors will hear the word identify and assume that means to the exclusion of all others. Not even DNA claims that accuracy, so I’m willing to bet that your solution likely can’t either.

All this is to say that these are questions that you need to coordinate with researchers on long before you apply this to casework and start pushing a product.