Abstract
The paper analyzes the logic and limits of the transformation of means of proof in civil proceedings in the Russian Federation, and draws a distinction between this category and the representation of evidentiary information. It is shown that a change in the procedural form while the content remains unchanged (for example, the transition of explanations from documentary form to the procedural means of «explanations of the parties and third parties», the use of the record of the hearing and the official audio recording in appellate instances as written/electronic evidence of procedural violations) affects the rules of admissibility and evaluation. Particular attention is given to the digital environment: printouts of correspondence, screenshots, files, metadata, and private audio-video recordings are, in practice, situationally classified as written, physical, or audio-video evidence, which creates risks of loss of authenticity, distortion of derivative images, and unpredictability of law enforcement. The need for the regulatory identification of electronic evidence as an independent type and the establishment of requirements for its presentation, identification, certification, storage and research (including work with metadata with the participation of a specialist and forensic computer-technical examinations), as well as the distinction between original and derivative electronic forms, is substantiated. The authors conclude that a clear distinction between transformation and presentation is useful for unifying judicial practice, increasing technological and legal certainty, and preventing the substitution of transformation by a mere change of medium.