I believe you have now to admit the evidence.

if not agreed, you note the disagreement and discuss this when deicing with the committee what weight to give the evidence.

Thanks Mike, seems then we are in a bit of a chicken and egg?  Or then must the parties agree to allow it in sight unseen?

as we are tasked to admit hearsay evidence we have to allow it unseen. The chair has to deal with the consequences after.
In verbal testimony you just do not know when someone will blurt out hearsay evidence, no there is no control upfront.

Maybe Rule M3.2 dot 9 needs rewording then as ,”...accept ... only if both parties agree” is pretty unambiguous. (understanding Appx M is advisory only). 

Old idea not yet fully updated, it will change.

My understanding is that it is presented at “witness time” in the hearing. The other party obviously can not question the witness. I think I would give that party an opportunity to say what they believe is in dispute and why they dispute it. It is the PC’s job to decide the degree to which weight will be given to the written testimony ( or other hearsay). It is not unlike the PC’s current job of deciding how much of any testimony from a witness influences the PC’s Facts Found. 

Interesting topic but hardly new concept. Many times juries in the past have considered "hearsay evidence" and thought nothing of it - including the competitors present. For example - mark rounding sheets presented by the RC Chair - the person from the mark boat rarely, if ever, has been present.  Likewise, when the RC is a party - paper notes from recorders for start of finish, or tape recordings start or finish, not done by but presented by the RC Chair.  I cannot remember an single time when the actual person who did the recording has been called to testify.  We have received measurement sheets from the Measurer, who may or may not have done the actual measurement.  I think that that the change might be an attempts to allow what has been the practice all along.