The law is disordered or unclear about the extent to which and the way in which there is a similarity requirement for the admissibility evidence in the form of simulations, courtroom experiments, non-courtroom experiments, visual re-enactments, day-in-the-life films, photographs, and visual demonstrative evidence.

See Hilao v. Estate of Marcos, 103 F.3d 767, 775 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding, in plaintiff torture victims' action against defendant estate of Ferdinand Marcos for damages, that the trial court properly admitted statements of....A statement is imputed to a principal or to an employer and is treated as the principal's or employer's vicarious admission (which, like other admissions is exempt from the hearsay rule) if the principal or employer is a party, the statement is offered against the principal or party, the statement is a statement by the party's agent or employee about a matter within the scope of the agent's agency or the employee's employment, and the statement is made during the principal-agent or employer-employee relationship.

Leonard v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 499 F.3d 419, 442 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that the district court erroneously admitted statements made by insurer's agent to policyholders as "habit" evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 406 because "evidence was lacking to suggest that [insurer agent's] statements...The routine practice of an organization is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 406 or a comparable State rule in order to show the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion, but a volitional routine practice cannot be used to show the conduct of a specific person on a particular occasion.

Fed. R. Evid. 807 ("However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it,...The catchall or omnibus hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a comparable State rule is available only if the proponent of a statement under this exception makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet the statement, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.