The managing scientist at Queensland's DNA lab has been told her evidence "makes no sense" as she attempted to justify her response to concerns about sperm detection.
Cathie Allen returned to the commission of inquiry for a third day on Monday, where questions focused on her actions after the issue came to light in 2016.
Asked if she took responsibility for a failure to review whether there was a problem with the processing of sexual assault investigation kits between 2010 and 2016, Ms Allen said she did not take sole responsibility.
"I think that's the responsibility of our management team," she said.
Scientist Amanda Reeves, with whom Ms Allen conceded she had a difficult relationship, raised concerns about some sperm samples showing a false negative early in processing.
The issue potentially went back to 2010, and a "work around" was introduced in 2016, the inquiry was told.
In January 2017, New Zealand lab ESR was asked to review the Queensland lab's standard operating procedures, however the terms of reference did not include the specific issue of false negatives.
ESR was provided with information about a one off incident when a negative control gave a false positive result.
Ms Allen denied she'd deliberately drafted the terms of reference so they didn't steer ESR toward the issue raised by Ms Reeves.
"I didn't want to bias the ESR review in any way, I wanted them to review the standard operating procedures as a whole and not focus on any particular area," she said.
The reasoning was rejected by counsel assisting Michael Hodge KC.
"That makes no sense, why would you provide them with a paper about a false positive if you didn't want to bias them in any way?" he said.
"The evidence you've just been giving, which makes no sense...it's a lie isnt it?"
Ms Allen maintained she was not lying, and the lab had undertaken an internal project, known as project 181, to look into the issue.
"We got particular information back from ESR, and we needed ...further information from project 181," she said.
But neither the ESR review, or project 181 addressed whether there was a systemic issue with how the lab handled the swabs over a six year period, Mr Hodge suggested.
Ms Alan denied she had preferred trying to "win" over Ms Reeves rather than address an issue in the processing of the samples.
She was accused of lying about other issues several times on Friday, and rejected the suggestions on each occasion.
Her evidence continues.
