Purpose: to analyze the criteria most used by experts in the handwriting analysis report. Methods: a descriptive, quantitative, inferential, and cross-sectional study, with statistical analysis of the results obtained with a form administered to the experts. The statistical calculations were made with R language, version 4.0.1, with statistical significance set at 5%. Results: the absolute frequency analysis indicated a greater occurrence of the use of initial and final pen strokes and handwriting progress, with a relative frequency above 70%. A detailed evaluation with univariate analysis showed that these criteria are not relevant to correct conclusions in the expert analysis report. It also pointed out that morphology is a relevant criterion to infer whether an evaluation is correct. The data showed that initial pen stroke, inclination, dynamism, and evolution, when observed in terms of multivariate modeling, were not significant, indicating that subjectivity is essential for the experts to make correct analyses. Conclusion: the most reported expert handwriting analysis criteria in relation to the experts’ correct analyses were not statistically relevant for the development of the analysis reports.