Well I have been told I do look a bit scruffy from time to time...
You can't be implying that a data capture device is infallible? Or that data translation is infallible? Junk in = Junk out. The image is a snapshot of the trees functionality for a given moment in time, all sampling methods have caveats. I'd be interested to know what yours are?
I suspect you both mean that your recommendations based on TI/TTMS are more auditable as the basic data collected in the field can transparently presented as supporting evidence - and that this strengthens the recommendations? I'm not sure this is a unique approach.
In terms of insurance, two things come to mind;
Firstly the insurers are gambling on an individuals likelihood of being wrong. The use of TI/TTMS is unlikely to reduce that likelihood despite accuracy claims given that it is a supplementary system (i.e., it informs other systems).
Secondly, in the light of the NTSG draft and their renewed focus on the 'reasonably prudent landowner' mantra it would seem that there is an increasing desire within the wider tree owning population for a considerably lighter touch. Now this might well be a USP for TI/TTMS but it might also be surplus to insurance requirements and therefore tricky to market.
How do you get TI/TTMS out of its niche? I think part of the PR war might be to avoid overstating its abilities and to clarify the language. This is not the future, it will not revolutionise arboriculture, the people who don't use it are not living in the dark ages, there is no new language - this is a handy tool which can help tree guys assess trees and decide what to do with them.
If it is here to stay then fair enough if not then we'll chuck it in the shed with the other glimpses of "the future" that promised so much, Sinclair C5, the Minidisc, the Amstrad email phone and yes, the Betamax.
Thankfully we'lll still have room for the IPad.