In People v. Steppe (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1116, the testifying witness explained, without objection, that no report could issue from the laboratory without the work of a reviewer who concurred in the result. Thus, when the witness, who was the reviewer there, testified to her conclusions, the jury knew that the results reached by the original analyst had been the same. (Id. at p. 1127.) The court found no confrontation clause violation there.