Nick, thank you for your response but I was aware of the existing validity checking in MR. Unfortunately, it does not detect as many errors as "rereading and comparing" would. The reason that I doggedly pursued this so hard is because on TWO separate occasions, I had an "intermittent" memory DIMM fault during which time MR Backup/Restore produced "corrupted" partitions without any error messages! And, once I had been alerted to a problem, it took me months to definitively diagnose the problem.
Since the NT File System does not employ CRC and there are so many layers of OS services between the hardware and MR, the absolute BEST it, or any other software product, can do after creating a new Image File or Restored Partition is to read it again to compare against the source used to create it. If there is any discrepancy at all, something undesirable occurred somewhere. I hardly consider that "an inefficient and poor substitute" when it can detect errors that are undetectable by the existing MR code! And, since the Image File or Restored Partition has already been created, there is nothing preventing MR from retaining it although I would certainly like a SEVERE warning message that it may be "corrupt".
For unfortunate historical reasons, the PC evolved into two grades of machines: consumer and commercial. The vast majority of machines are and always will be consumer grade lacking such things as memory PARITY/ECC and the like. And, assuming you can even find and are willing to pay the premium for a commercial machine, even they lack many of the "data integrity" features found on mainframes. I also find it ironic that manufactures of HDDs have completely reversed these distinctions between their consumer and commercial grade products: Their consumer products try to recover "at all cost" while the commercial products immediately raise an error! I cannot help wondering what information they had other than RAID requirements that caused them to diverge like this? However, this is the arena in which MR operates so the product should be adapted accordingly.
Except for one study by Google on memory errors on their server farm machines, I am unaware of any studies that have been done on the nature of errors and the frequency of their occurences on PCs. So, it is not unexpected that there is differing opinion on this subject by different technical people. Everything done in software has a cost-benefit. Due to lack of data, it is difficult to accurately estimate the benefit to customers and MR of implementing this suggestion. The development and maintenance costs are much easier to quantify. And, as with any software product, there are probably any number of other requirements and suggestions competing for the limited available resources. I posted this suggestion hoping to generate comments from USERS as much as from MR. The most important question to be answered is, "If there were such a feature, would you even USE it knowing that it would DOUBLE the time required to do a Backup/Restore?" Without this information, no case can be made for adding such an option.
I have said everything I wanted so I will end it here. Windows 10 becomes officially available in a few days so I will go torture it for awhile!