# Evidence Evaluation and Conflict Resolution

Detailed frameworks for analyzing genealogical evidence, resolving conflicts between sources, and building proof arguments.

## Source Weighting

Not all sources are equal. When sources conflict, weight them — don't count them.

### Weighting Factors (in priority order)

1. **Proximity to event** — Was the informant present? Was the record created at the time of the event?
2. **Informant knowledge** — Did the informant have direct knowledge, or are they reporting hearsay?
3. **Purpose of the record** — Was the information central to the record's purpose (bride's name on a marriage license) or incidental (birthplace on a census)?
4. **Original vs. derivative** — Are you looking at the original, or a transcription/abstract that may contain copying errors?
5. **Internal consistency** — Does the source contradict itself?
6. **Corroboration** — Do independent sources agree? (Derivative copies of the same original are NOT independent corroboration.)

### Common Weighting Mistakes

- **Counting sources instead of weighing them.** Three Ancestry member trees copying the same wrong date don't outweigh one original record.
- **Treating indexes as sources.** An index points to a record. The record is the source. Index errors are common.
- **Assuming original = accurate.** A death certificate is an original source but contains secondary information about birth (reported decades later by someone who may not have been present).
- **Ignoring negative evidence.** A person's absence from a record they should appear in is evidence. It doesn't prove anything alone, but it contributes to the picture.

## Conflict Resolution Framework

When sources disagree about a fact:

### Step 1: Define the Conflict Precisely
State exactly what each source says. "The birth year is unclear" is not precise. "The 1850 census says age 35 (born ~1815), the 1860 census says age 50 (born ~1810), and the death certificate says born 1812" is precise.

### Step 2: Classify Each Source
For each conflicting source, document:
- Source type (original / derivative / authored)
- Information type (primary / secondary / undetermined)
- Evidence type (direct / indirect / negative)
- Informant (who provided the information, if known)
- Informant's relationship to the fact (direct knowledge / hearsay / unknown)

### Step 3: Identify Explanations
Before choosing a winner, consider why the sources disagree:
- **Transcription error** — The original says one thing, the copy says another
- **Informant error** — The person reporting didn't know or misremembered
- **Different informants** — Each source had a different informant with different knowledge
- **Rounding or estimation** — Census ages are often rounded; "about 35" could mean 33-37
- **Identity confusion** — The sources may be about different people with the same name
- **Both partially correct** — The truth may be between the sources (e.g., moved mid-year)

### Step 4: Apply Evidence Weight
Rank the sources from most to least reliable for THIS SPECIFIC FACT. A source can be highly reliable for one fact and unreliable for another within the same document.

### Step 5: State the Conclusion
- If one source clearly outweighs others: state the conclusion and explain why
- If sources are roughly equal: acknowledge the conflict is unresolvable with current evidence and note what additional records might resolve it
- If a pattern emerges (e.g., ages consistently decrease on later censuses): note the pattern as it may explain the discrepancy

## GPS Deep Dive

### Element 1: Reasonably Exhaustive Research

"Reasonably exhaustive" does not mean "every record ever created." It means:
- You searched the record types that could confirm or deny the claim
- You searched the repositories where those records are likely held
- You searched for the subject AND relevant FAN members
- You documented what you searched, including negative results
- You did not stop at the first confirming source

**Test:** Could a competent researcher point to an obvious, accessible record set you didn't check?

### Element 2: Complete and Accurate Citations

Every source must be cited with enough detail that another researcher can:
- Find the exact same record
- Evaluate the source's reliability
- Distinguish between the original record and the access method (e.g., "digital image of original" vs. "database entry")

### Element 3: Analysis and Correlation

Sources must be compared to each other:
- What do they agree on?
- What do they disagree on?
- Do they corroborate independently, or are they derivative of each other?
- What does each source contribute to the overall picture?

### Element 4: Resolution of Conflicting Evidence

Conflicts cannot be ignored. For each conflict:
- Acknowledge it explicitly
- Explain possible causes
- Apply evidence weight
- State whether the conflict is resolved or remains open
- If unresolved, explain what additional evidence might resolve it

### Element 5: Soundly Reasoned Conclusion

The conclusion must:
- Follow logically from the evidence presented
- Not overstate what the evidence supports
- Acknowledge limitations and remaining uncertainties
- Be written clearly enough that another researcher can follow the reasoning and evaluate it independently

## Proof Levels

| Level | Meaning | GPS Status |
|-------|---------|------------|
| Proven | Beyond reasonable doubt | All 5 elements fully satisfied |
| Probable | Preponderance supports it | Most elements satisfied; minor gaps |
| Possible | Some evidence supports it | Significant gaps in research or evidence |
| Unproven | Insufficient evidence | Cannot assess; more research needed |
| Disproven | Evidence contradicts it | Evidence actively refutes the claim |

## Common Genealogical Evidence Patterns

### Census Age Discrepancies
Census ages are notoriously unreliable. The informant may not have known exact ages, may have rounded, or the enumerator may have estimated. A 2-3 year spread across censuses is normal and does not constitute a meaningful conflict.

### Name Spelling Variations
Before standardized spelling, names were recorded phonetically by the recorder. Atreides/Atreidies, Halleck/Hallek/Hallak, Leto/Leeto are the same name. Treat spelling as fluid, not as evidence of different people.

### "Same Name, Same Place" Trap
Two people with the same name in the same county are NOT necessarily the same person. Use age, associates, property, and family context to distinguish. The existence of "Sr." and "Jr." designations in records may indicate father/son, but may also just mean "older" and "younger" among unrelated men.