The answer is: neither statement was precise enough.

Both statements were used to describe the same exact wall, so which is correct?

Both should have quantified the crack through measurement and/or some form of Photogrammetry. The Guidelines for Forensic Engineering Practice published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and edited by Gary L. Lewis states: "Film is a useful tool in documenting field conditions, measurements, and test results. Still photography can be used to document patterns, notes, measurements, damages, and scale when objects of known size are included."

Photogrammetry is the technique of measuring objects (2D or 3D) from photographs. The uses of photogrammetry are wide spread and mainly employed when interpreting objects or obtaining measured information from visually captured data.

When capturing data in three dimensions, a calibrated camera or multiple photos are required. In either case common points are located and plotted from each photograph. From these points scale and feature can be established and data retrieved. A simper and much more common use of this technology is capturing data in two dimensions. In two dimensions, such as the example above, a calibrated camera or a single photo can be relied upon provided a scale is placed within the photograph.

Putting this in terms of our example, the precise and more reliable statement should have read:
"The exterior wall contained a crack measuring less than 1/32 inch within the masonry veneer."

For more information on this topic our forensic group is ready to assist you. Contact William Bracken at wbracken@brackenengineering.com