a report and a supplementary report, were simply filed as exhibits; the wife’s expert’s report, prepared by Mr. Norton9 (the husband’s expert for the 2007 pension valuation), was filed as an
exhibit and Mr. Norton also testified before the motion judge.
 DSW’s reports responded to a question from counsel about
why the value of the husband’s pension had increased from the
value assumed for equalization purposes as at the date of separation. The reports did not provide a specific valuation of the
portion of the husband’s pension payout that had not been subject to equalization.
 Rather, the reports explained that a number of factors
affected the change in value — and that the value attached to
a particular factor could change depending on the order of calculation. The author attached an appendix to his second report
attributing a specific value to each factor, which he opined “
rep-resent[ed] a reasonable estimate of the effect of each factor”.
However, he cautioned that the appendix was “not the only possible illustration of the effect of each factor”.
 The salient portions of the appendix to the second report
are as follows:
Reconciliation of Change in Value since the Date of Separation
After Tax Amount September 23, 2007 $268,133
Pre-tax Amount $361,365
Retirement Age Earlier than Assumed $433,000
Passage of Time $215,000
Pre-Marriage and Post Separation Service $253,000
Change in Interest Rates $267,000
Change in the Mortality Assumption $227,000
Post-Retirement Survivor Benefits $184,000
Pre-tax Amount August 24, 2012 $1,882,39610
Approximate After-Tax Amount $1,200,000
9 The report was issued in the name J.M. Norton Consulting Inc., but
Mr. Norton was the author.
10 This amount corresponds with the pre-tax “immediate settlement” amount
in the pension statement the husband received from his employer.