Quality assurance is a pre-requisite for operational forensic genetic laboratories and professional organisations such as ENFSI, SWGDAM or ISFG. These organisations provide guidelines/recommendations for the methods used (both for analysis and evaluation), and for reporting. Aspects regarding analyses will generally be found in the accreditation scope, contrary to evaluation. Moreover, proficiency testing on how to evaluate and report results is still in its infancy. This is problematic as the quality of forensic science services for the administration of justice crucially depends on how results are evaluated and conveyed. In this paper, we use examples of written and oral statements to illustrate how accreditation could improve and ensure that guidelines on interpretation are properly implemented, reviewed and maintained. We underline the need for certifying and validating the knowledge of the experts in that specific field. Indeed, analytical techniques have for many years been the focus of accreditation, rather than the soundness and logic of communication of the value of the results obtained with these techniques. It is now time for a shift and to provide means that ensure that forensic scientists’ conclusions are as justifiable as their analytical methods.