How to ensure, that X-ray crystallography structure analysis was done right to provide correct, non-mirrored atomic coordinates?
Example: Following Wikipedia image,
is generated from data taken from the article Redetermination of (+)-methamphetamine hydrochloride at 90 K.
the enantiomer of “native” methamphetamine, dextromethamphetamine, (+)-methamphetamine, identified as (S)-methamphetamine.
Also, the article does not claim that the absolute configuration of (dextro)methamphetamine has been for so long mistaken and that they come with revolutionary discovery, rather are just focusing on some inter-atomic distances. (Also the “traditional absolute configuration” has been verified e.g. by synthesis from D-phenylalanine.)
As far as I have known, X-ray structure analysis was unable to provide absolute configuration info. But technology evolves. Can one determine from the experimental data, that it's supposed to be “absolute” or “relative” only (so that the coordinates presented can be mirrored)?
UPDATE: After some comments, I should emphasize that the example is just for an example (of case where the reported coordinates seem to be mirrored; I don’t know how rare or common it is), but can be used as an example in the answer as well, of course (e.g. CIF file analysis, e.g. explaining the Flack parameter value meaning, …)
And a subquestion: When hydrogen positions are provided, does it imply that the configuration is absolute? (I presume that the coordinates can still be mirrored even in such case; I mean “uncertain z-coordinate orientation”.)