A sea change in the field of arson science over the last several decades has led to dozens of exonerations. However, while misleading origin and cause evidence is now more fully understood, the role of fire debris analysis - specifically lab interpretation of that evidence - has been less fully explored. For example, while "pour patterns" and "deep charring" are no longer widely viewed as telltale signs of ignitable liquids, misleading testimony regarding debris analysis remains ubiquitous in modern arson cases. Many crime labs have standards for interpretation that are either undefined or inconsistent with consensus standards in the field, leading to or misleading reports of a sample as "positive" for ignitable liquids. This panel - made up of post-conviction litigators, policy advocates, and a forensic chemist - will discuss avenues for challenging forensic chemistry and debris analysis evidence in arson cases, both systemically and through individual case work.