Genealogical Proof Standard #4: Resolving Conflicting Evidence

AI image

Throughout this series, we’ve been exploring the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) and how it helps us build a solid answer to a research question. Its five elements are:

• Reasonably exhaustive research
• Complete and accurate source citations
• Thorough analysis and correlation
• Resolution of conflicting evidence
• A soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion

Although we are examining each element separately, in reality, they are interlocking components of the evaluation process. Research brings us to the records; citations document where our information came from. Analysis helps us evaluate each source, while correlation lets us compare the evidence for agreements, differences, and connections. Often these steps send us back to one another—new conflicts require more research. All of this supports the final written conclusion.

In the last post, we looked at analysis and correlation. Sometimes the pieces fit neatly. Sometimes they don’t. Today’s example of conflicting evidence comes from my own family tree.

The Photo That Started It All

I recently shared a photograph of the Lukas family headstone found among my mother’s belongings. It lists the birth and death dates for my great‑grandparents, Johann "Hans" Lukas and Elisabeth Bräu, my grandmother Hedwig, and three of my mother’s siblings who died young.

A cousin in Straubing told me that Elisabeth’s maiden name was Straubinger, but the headstone said Bräu. I needed to know more, so I continued researching. I looked for:

• Civil records from Straubing
• Catholic church records on Matricula Online
• Newspaper searches 
• Cemetery information 

With these records gathered, it was time to analyze. I thought I was only seeking proof of a maiden name or possibly a second marriage, but what I found was much more.

 

Analyzing the records

I evaluated each record as original, derivative, or authored works, then considered whether the different pieces of information contained within was primary, secondary, or undetermined.

Headstone Photo

• Source type: It is an original. An image that is clear and easily viewed with no signs of cropping can be treated as a representation of the original.
• Information: The headstone photo lists Elisabeth’s death date as 4 June 1937 and identifies her as Eliese Bräu, married Lukas.¹
• Information quality: It is not known who supplied the names and dates or when the inscription was added. Therefore, the information is undetermined. 

Catholic funeral book

• Source type: Original
• Information: The parish listed her as Elisabeth Bräu and her death as 1 March 1939 and burial on 3 March 1939.² 
• Information quality: Burial date is primary, because a priest officiated the funeral and it was documented near the time of the funeral. However, the death date is undetermined because the informant is not identified. We should not assume that the clergy were present at the death. It is likely that a family member supplied the information.

Catholic marriage records

• Source type: Original
• Information: The parish lists a marriage date of 18 May 1897 for Johann “Hans” Lukas and Elisabeth Straubinger³ and another marriage date of 8 August 1922 for Georg Bräu and Elisabeth Lukas.⁴
• Information quality: Both records give primary information for the marriage dates and spouses, because a parish priest officiated the weddings and documented the evidence soon after the ceremonies.

Civil marriage records

• Source type: Original
• Information: Two certificates were received. One for the marriage of Elisabeth Straubinger to Johann Lukas⁵ (18 May 1897) and a second for Elisabeth Lukas to Georg Bräu⁶ (8 August 1922).
• Information quality: The marriage date is considered primary, recorded at or near the time of the event, with two witnesses testifying for each document.

Civil death record

• Source type: Original
• Information: Reports Elisabeth’s death on 1 March 1939 at 6:30 a.m. Identifies her son, Johann Lukas, as the informant with personal knowledge.⁷
• Information quality: Death information is primary.

Newspapers

• Information: Newspapers.com does not carry papers for the Straubing area, and OldNews.org does not carry digitized newspapers for Straubing from the years of 1900 to 1939 which would have included Elisabeth's married to Georg and her date of death. Negative evidence of a newspaper article for a wedding between Johann Lukas and Elisabeth Straubinger in 1897.⁸

Cemetery information

• Information: Negative evidence: Since many of my mother’s family members had been buried in Friedhof St. Michael, I contacted the cemetery to see what information could be found. In email correspondence, I was informed that due to cemetery rules regarding plot leasing, the headstone would have been removed many years ago. They could not confirm nor deny that the headstone had ever been in that cemetery, because older funeral records were not digitized when the system changed and were no longer accessible.⁹

With the analysis for each record complete, the next step was to compare the records information to one another.

Correlating the evidence
Placed side by side, it was clear that Elisabeth’s name on the headstone was a married name as corroborated by both civil and Catholic marriage records and her first marriage clearly identified her as Elisabeth Straubinger. The bigger issue was her date of death.

• Headstone: Eliese Bräu, died 4 June 1937
• Catholic funeral book: Elisabeth Bräu, died 1 March 1939; burial 3 March 1939
• Civil death record: Elisabeth Bräu, died 1 March 1939 at 6:30 a.m.

The church and civil records agree. The headstone stands alone with a date nearly two years earlier.

Resolving the conflict

When resolving conflicting evidence, we consider:

• Records created closest to the event
• Primary vs. secondary or undetermined information
• Original vs. derivative sources

The civil death record carries the strongest weight for her actual date of death: it was created at the time of the event, gives an exact date and time, and names an informant with firsthand knowledge.

The Catholic funeral book supports the same date and provides primary evidence of the burial.

The headstone offers a conflicting date with an unknown informant and unknown timing of inscription.  

After analyzing and correlating the records, the conflict could be resolved: the evidence supports 1 March 1939 as Elisabeth’s best-supported date of death.

With the conflict resolved, it was finally time to write a clear conclusion to support Elisabeth’s date of death—and that’s where we’ll pick up in GPS #5.

=========================================================

¹ Lukas family headstone photograph was held in a private photo collection by Elisabeth "Kathy" Lukas Hall and passed down to her daughter Lisa Petersen upon her death in January 2021 [address for private use]. The far left-side of the headstone is inscribed with the name Eliese Bräu Lukas and the date of death as 4 June 1937, photographer unknown, likely Friedhof St. Michael. 

² St. Jakob parish, (Straubing, Bavaria), "Sterbe-Register [Death Register], 1910-1940," p. 461, entry 37, Elisabeth Bräu geb. Straubinger, died 1 March 1939, buried 3 March 1939; digital images, Matricula Online (https://data.matricula-online.eu/ : accessed 1 October 2025) > search terms: Straubing > St. Jakob > Beerdigungen, Register Beerdigungen, 1911-1939 > St. Jakob 047 > image 466; citing Roman Catholic Diocese of Regensburg. 

³ St. Peter parish, (Straubing, Bavaria), "Trauungen Bd. IX [Weddings, Vol. 9] 1888-1922," p. 70 entry 16, John. Bapt. Lukas and Elisabeth Straubinger, married 18 May 1897; digital images, Matricula Online (https://data.matricula-online.eu/ : accessed 17 March 2026) > search terms: Straubing > St. Peter > Trauungen, 1888-1922 > St. Peter 028 > image 73; citing Roman Catholic Diocese of Regensburg.

⁴ St. Jakob parish, (Straubing, Bavaria), “Trauungsmatrikel [Weddings], 1908-1928," p. 193 entry 79. Georg Bräu and Elisabeth Lukas (widow) married 8 August 1922; digital images, Matricula Online (https://data.matricula-online.eu/ : accessed 6 Oct 2025) > search terms: Straubing > St. Jakob > Trauungen, 1908-1922 > St.Jakob 041 > image 0196; citing Roman Catholic Diocese of Regensburg.

⁵ Germany, Standesamt Straubing, "Heiratsbuch [Marriage Register] 1897," no. 51, Johann Baptist Lukas and Elisabeth Straubinger, married 18 May1897; certified copy received 10 September 2025, held by Renita Collier [address for private use]; original records maintained at Stadtarchiv im Salzstadel, Rentamtsberg 1, Straubing.

⁶ Germany, Standesamt Straubing, "Heiratsbuch [Marriage Register] 1922," no. 118, Georg Bräu and Elisabeth Lukas, geb. Straubinger, married 8 August 1922; certified copy received 10 September 2025, held by Renita Collier [address for private use]; original records maintained at Stadtarchiv im Salzstadel, Rentamtsberg 1, Straubing.  

⁷ Germany, Standesamt Straubing, "Sterbebuch [Death Register] 1939," no. 114, Elisabeth Bräu, geb. Straubinger, died 1 March 1939; certified copy received 10 September 2025, held by Renita Collier [address for private use]; Stadtarchiv im Salzstadel, Rentamtsberg 1, Straubing.      

⁸ OldNews, database and digital images, (https://www.oldnews.com/en/newspapers/germany/bavaria/straubing : accessed 1 October 2026), search for "Straubing, Bavaria Newspapers"; the search returned a landing directory listing four digitized titles (Straubinger Tagblatt, Straubinger Zeitung, Straubinger Wochenblatt, and Niederbayerische Allgemeine Zeitung), with collective coverage ending no later than 1876; no holdings were available for the post-1876 years relevant to Elisabeth Straubinger’s life. Also. Newspapers.com, database and digital images, (https://www.newspapers.com : accessed 1 October 2026), search for "Straubing, Bavaria" and "Straubing Bayern"; the search returned zero results for digitized historical newspapers published in this location.

⁹ Catholic Cemetery Administration St. Michael (Straubing, Bavaria, Germany), Manuela Fisch [clerical officer] to Renita Collier, email, 10 March 2022, “Lukas family Monument”; privately held by Renita Collier [address for private use]. Fisch explained that cemetery regulations require removal of headstones and remains after the lease period expires, and that computerized files included only plots that were active and current at the time of digitization; older records are no longer accessible.

Genealogical Proof Standard #3 - Thorough Analysis and Correlation

Even when we search broadly, locate original records, and carefully cite every source—those records do not automatically give us an answer.

In Mastering Genealogical Proof, Thomas W. Jones explains "Analysis and correlation test genealogical evidence."

Analysis helps us evaluate the reliability of each source and each detail contained within it. Correlation compares those details across multiple records to identify agreements, conflicts, and patterns. Together, they help prevent us from reaching conclusions simply because they match our expectations. 

When we find a record, it can be tempting to focus on the one piece of information we were looking for.

• A death certificate that gives us that elusive birth date.
• A census gives us a birthplace.
• A marriage record gives us the name of a spouse.

But genealogical analysis requires us to look more closely and ask:

• Who created this record?
• When and why was it created?
• Who provided the information?
• Would that person have known the answer firsthand?
• Was the information recorded near the time of the event?
• Is the record an original record or a later copy or transcription?

Analyzing Records

Most importantly, we need to remember that a record is not the same thing as a fact. A record contains information and the information becomes evidence after we evaluate its reliability.

Start by Analyzing the Source

Sources fall into three categories: 

Original records are the first recorded form. A good quality digital copy or photocopy may be considered an original record, unless it has been altered (cropped) or unreadable.

Derivative records are transcriptions, abstracts, indexes, or other reproductions. For example, an original handwritten marriage register kept by a county clerk is different from a published transcription of that register. The transcription may be perfectly accurate, but each copy introduces the possibility of error. 

Authored works are different. They are compiled interpretations or summaries created from multiple sources, such as family histories or genealogies. 

Derivative records and authored works can be extremely useful. Sometimes they may even be the only surviving source available. But when an original record exists, we should try to examine it ourselves.

Not All Information in the Same Record Is Equally Reliable

Within any record, information varies in reliability. Information falls into three categories: 
Primary information comes from someone with firsthand knowledge of the event. For example, a mother providing information about the birth of her child is reporting something she personally experienced.

Secondary information comes from someone who learned about the event from another person or source. A son reporting his mother's birthplace on her death certificate many decades later may know the answer—but he was not present at her birth.

Undetermined information is provided by an unknown informant, meaning we cannot assess its reliability. When a record does not identify who provided the details, we cannot determine whether the informant had firsthand knowledge, secondhand knowledge, or no knowledge at all. 

Census records are a common example. Most U.S. censuses do not indicate who spoke to the enumerator. For example, it could have been an older child, a second wife, a neighbor. There is no way to determine the reliability of the information given. The only exception is the 1940 U.S. census, where enumerators marked the informant with an X, allowing us to assess whether the information likely came from someone knowledgeable. 

A single record may contain both primary and secondary information. A common example would be a death certificate. An attending physician may have had firsthand knowledge of the death or its circumstances. The information concerning the death is therefore likely to be primary information.

The deceased person's birth date, birthplace, or parents' names may have been supplied by a grieving spouse, child, neighbor, or other informant decades after the person's birth. For those events, the informant was probably relying on secondary information.

It is important to evaluate each piece of information separately. It is also important to remember that primary does not automatically mean the record is correct, and secondary does not automatically mean it's wrong. Someone with firsthand knowledge can make a mistake, while information passed down through the family may turn out to be completely accurate.

Then Comes Correlation

While analysis looks at individual pieces of evidence, correlation looks across them and brings the evidence together. It asks:

• Where does the evidence agree?
• Where does it disagree?
• What patterns emerge when records are compared?

Suppose several records give birth years of 1882, 1884, 1885, and 1887. Which one is correct? We cannot simply choose the date that appears most often. We need to consider whether the information is primary or secondary, who provided it, when it was recorded, and how it compares with the other evidence. 

• Perhaps the 1882 date appears on a death certificate created 70 years after the birth.
• The 1884 estimate comes from a census.
• The 1885 date appears in a Bible entry that seems to have been written years later.
• But the 1887 church baptismal record was recorded shortly after the child's birth.

Correlation requires examining all evidence—both supporting and conflicting. Only then are we able to evaluate the information and begin forming a hypothesis.

Create a Working Hypothesis

Genealogical conclusions should be based on the best available evidence—but remain open to revision if a new record appears. As evidence accumulates, we form a working hypothesis and test it by asking:

• Does the age fit?

• Does the location fit?

• Do the family relationships fit?

• Does the chronology work?

• Do the names make sense?

• Do the records contradict one another?

• What evidence would we expect to find if our hypothesis were correct?

• What evidence would prove us wrong?

Thorough analysis and correlation help us understand what our evidence is—and what it is not. When conflicts remain after this step, the next task is not to ignore them or force agreement, but to resolve them. That process is the focus of the fourth component of the Genealogical Proof Standard.

Genealogical Proof Standard #1: How Much Research Is Enough?

AI Generated

If you missed my last post, Searching Isn't Researching, I talked about why finding records and doing genealogical research aren't quite the same thing. Searching finds records. Research begins with a question and uses those records to seek an answer..

But, how much research is enough?

The first component of the Genealogical Proof Standard calls for reasonably exhaustive research. Notice the word reasonably. We aren't expected to search every record ever created. But we also shouldn't stop with the first record that seems to answer our question.

Reasonably exhaustive research means looking beyond the obvious sources and considering what other records might provide relevant evidence. That means identifying the sources most likely to address our research question—whether census records, probate files, deeds, tax lists, church registers, newspapers, military records, court records, or records involving an ancestor's friends, associates, and neighbors (FAN).

Sometimes, however, the record we really want simply can't be found.

When the Record You Need Isn't There

One of my own research problems illustrates this perfectly.

For years, I couldn’t find the first marriage record for my second great‑grandmother, Melvina. I knew her first husband’s surname was Gaylor, and that missing record might have revealed the maiden name I’d been searching for.

But it simply wasn’t there.

So I asked myself: What other records might contain her maiden name?

Melvina died sometime between 1920 and 1930 in Texas, but despite searching, I haven’t located a death certificate—one that might have named her parents. Texas required death registration during this period, but that didn’t guarantee that every death was actually recorded or that the record survived.

I turned to the death certificates of four of Melvina's children. Some of her other children died very young, before the state required death certificates.

My great-grandfather and his sister both identified their mother's maiden name as Melvina Mitchell. A third sibling's death certificate listed her maiden name as unknown. But the fourth identified her as Melvina Nicholas¹.

Two records said Mitchell. One said Nicholas. One didn't know.

Because her first husband was a Gaylor, Nicholas couldn't be explained as a married name. I had conflicting information that I couldn't just dismiss.

It would have been easy to choose Mitchell because two of the four records agreed. Melvina also lived with my great-grandfather for more than a decade before her death, which gave me additional reason to think he might have known his mother's maiden name.

But I didn't want to stop there.

Family information provided two additional clues: Melvina had a half-sister named Elizabeth Scott, who later married George Hedrick, and a brother named Tully.

These clues provided me with names and relationships to search for.

I began looking for a Melvina Mitchell using the information I already had: she was born about 1842 in Missouri. In the 1860 census of Taney County, Missouri, I found the household of John Mitchell. Living in that household were Melvina Mitchell, age 18, and Tully Mitchell, age 11.²

That caught my attention. I now had a Melvina of the right age and birthplace living with a brother named Tully.

But Elizabeth Scott wasn't in the household.

So I looked back to 1850. In Taney County, I found the household headed by J. Mitchell. There I found M. Mitchell, female, age 9; T. S. Mitchell, male, age 1; and E. A. Scott, female, age 11³.

Next, I followed Elizabeth forward. In 1860, just a few pages from the Mitchell household, I found George Hedrick with Elizabeth, age 21—the right age for the E. A. Scott I had found ten years earlier⁴.

Now I had much more than two death certificates reporting the name Mitchell. I had:

• a Melvina of the right age and birthplace
• living with Tully, the brother named in family information
• appearing ten years earlier with Tully and Elizabeth Scott
• Elizabeth later living near the Mitchells with the man she was said to have married.

Family information hadn't proved these relationships, but it did tell me who to look for and where to keep searching.

Had I stopped with the first death certificate, I might have arrived at the correct answer. But I wouldn't have had nearly as much reason to trust it.

Looking Beyond the Easy Answer

Reasonably exhaustive research also means recognizing that our ancestors didn't always make themselves easy to find. Names were misspelled. People used nicknames or middle names. Indexes contain errors. County boundaries changed. Families moved. Some records were never created; others were lost or destroyed.

Sometimes we need to try multiple spellings, search neighboring counties, or go page by page through the original images. Sometimes we need to stop searching only for our ancestor and begin researching the people around them.

We also need to remember that not everything is online. A reasonably exhaustive effort may take us beyond the large genealogy websites to a courthouse, archive, library, historical society, cemetery, church, or another repository.

Even searches that don't produce a record can be important. Tracking where we've looked—and what we didn't find—keeps us from repeating the same work and helps us decide where we should look next.

The goal is to search broadly and thoughtfully enough that we aren't overlooking evidence that could change the answer to our research question.

My search for Melvina's maiden name didn't end when I found a record that said Mitchell. Staying anchored to my research question gave me a roadmap and helped me identify the sources most likely to provide an answer—including records created by or about members of the FAN club.

Confidence comes from knowing you didn't stop with the easy answer, but followed the evidence wherever it led.

----------------------------------------------------------

^1.“Texas, U.S., Death Certificates, 1903–1982,” database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 1 March 2010), state file no. 3641, entry for R. F. Wickliffe, died 22 January 1946; citing Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, Austin. Also, “Texas, U.S., Death Certificates, 1903–1982,” database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 1 March 2010), state file no. 53972, entry for Florence Addielene Moffitt, died 23 November 1950; citing Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, Austin. Also, “Texas, U.S., Death Certificates, 1903–1982,” database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 1 March 2010), registrar no. 70225, entry for John Benton Wycliff, died 22 January 1941; citing Texas Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, Austin. Also, “Arkansas, Death Certificates, 1914-1969,” database with images, Ancestry (https://www.ancestry.com : accessed 1 March 2010), state file no. 00402, entry for Clint N. Wickliffe, died 7 February 1962; citing Arkansas State Board of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics, Little Rock. ↩

^2.1860 U.S. census, Taney County, Missouri, population schedule, Newton, p.7 (penned), p.861 (penned), dwelling 41, family 42, John Mitchell household; digital image, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com: accessed 07 January 2012); citing NARA microfilm publication M653, roll 658.↩

^3.1850 U.S. census, Taney County, Missouri, population schedule, Swan, p. 346 (stamped), p. 689 (penned), dwelling 88, family 88, J. Mitchell household; digital image, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com: accessed 08 January 2012); citing NARA microfilm publication M432, roll 420. ↩

^4.1860 U.S. census, Taney County, Missouri, population schedule, Newton, p.1 (penned), p. 855 (penned), dwelling 4, family 4, George Hedrick household; digital image, Ancestry (http://www.ancestry.com: accessed 08 January 2012); citing NARA microfilm publication M653, roll 658.↩

Searching Isn't Researching: Laying the Foundation for the Genealogical Proof Standard

One of the greatest lessons I learned during my 21 years in the classroom has served me just as well in genealogy.

As a teacher, I never walked into a classroom wondering, What am I going to teach today? Every lesson began with a learning objective. I knew exactly what I wanted my students to understand before I chose the activities, worksheets, or assessments. The tools supported the lesson—they didn't determine it.

Genealogy works the same way.

Too often, we sit down at the computer, type an ancestor's name into a search box, and begin collecting whatever records appear. We save a census record, download a death certificate, maybe find a marriage record, and call it a productive day.

That's searching.

Searching is necessary—but searching alone rarely solves genealogical problems. Without a purpose, it's easy to collect records instead of finding answers.

That's where research comes in. The first part of research begins with a question.

Instead of asking, What can I find on Benjamin Ball? try asking:

• Who were Benjamin Ball's parents?
• Where was he living during the 1850 and 1860 censuses?
• Why did he disappear from one county and appear in another?
• Did he serve in the Civil War, or was there another man with the same name?

Once you know what you're trying to learn, you can develop a research plan and identify the records most likely to answer your question. A census may establish residence. A deed might reveal family relationships. Probate records, tax lists, church registers, newspapers, military records, or the records of friends, associates, and neighbors (the FAN Club) may each provide another piece of the puzzle.

Now your searching has purpose.

This distinction isn't just my opinion—it's reflected in the evolution of genealogical standards themselves.

When the Board for Certification of Genealogists first published Genealogy Standards in 2000, the first element of the Genealogical Proof Standard called for a reasonably exhaustive search. In the 2014 edition, that wording changed to reasonably exhaustive research.

That may seem like a small change, but it reflects a significant shift in thinking.

Searching is the act of locating records.

Research begins with a question, follows a plan, and searches for records with purpose.

That single word change reflects a shift in mindset. Modern genealogy isn't measured by how many records we collect, but by how thoughtfully we answer a research question.

Looking back, I realize this was one of the most important lessons I learned while studying the Genealogical Proof Standard. At first, I thought the challenge was learning the five standards. Instead, the real challenge was changing the way I approached genealogy.

Once I stopped asking, What records can I find? and started asking, What question am I trying to answer?, everything else began to fall into place.

That simple shift in mindset is the foundation of the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS)—and the focus of this series.

Over the next several articles, we'll build on this foundation by exploring each element of the Genealogical Proof Standard and how they work together to produce reliable genealogical conclusions.

• Reasonably Exhaustive Research
• Complete and Accurate Source Citations
• Analysis and Correlation of Evidence
• Resolving Conflicting Evidence
• Writing a Soundly Reasoned, Coherently Written Conclusion

Join me in this journey, and you will see that the Genealogical Proof Standard is not five separate requirements, but one connected process for answering family history questions with confidence.

Skills: Mastering Genealogical Proof

I have been working diligently to further my genealogical education. For many years, I've read books, articles, and blog posts to build my skills. This year, I made the decision to incorporate more formal training into my learning journey. I joined the Gen Proof Study Group 48 mentored by Liz Stratton, where we read Mastering Genealogical Proof by Thomas W. Jones.  

Each week, we read a chapter, analyze the concepts, and complete the assignment questions. Then, we meet online to discuss our answers and dig deeper into the reasoning behind them.

What Is Genealogical Proof

The Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS), as described by the Board for Certification of Genealogists (BCG), consists of five elements:

• Reasonably exhaustive research
• Complete and accurate source citations
• Analysis and correlation of evidence
• Resolution of conflicting evidence
• Sound, reasonable, and coherently written conclusion

Why Does This Matter?

The BCG states that "standards are the best practices for genealogy. They enable all genealogists—not just BCG associates—to come as close as possible to what actually happened in history."

This group and the weekly assignments have challenged many of my assumptions about what "proof" means in genealogy. Genealogy is never truly complete, and it rarely reaches 100% certainty. A conclusion is considered "proved" when someone has followed the GPS steps and written a sound, reasonable explanation of how the evidence supports that conclusion. 

If new evidence appears later, it's evaluated alongside the previous information, and it may reinforce the earlier conclusion or lead to a revised one. Genealogy is always evolving. 

Analysis and Correlation: An Educator's Perspective

As an educator, I've always defined analysis as breaking information into its individual components to understand it fully. In genealogy, analysis has a more specific meaning: determining whether a source is original, derivative, or authored, and whether the information it contains is primary, secondary, or indeterminable.

Correlation involves comparing two or more pieces of information to see how they relate. This concept is familiar in education. For example, when a student misses a lot of school, their GPA often declines. That's a negative correlation.

In genealogy, correlation might look like comparing census records, land deeds, and marriage records to see whether they point to the same person in the same place at the same time. Correlation can be positive, negative, or have zero effect.

Applying the GPS Through Weekly Assignments

Each chapter of Mastering Genealogical Proof includes study questions that require us to apply what we've learned to real-life examples. These assignments have been invaluable in helping me understand how the GPS works in practice—not just theory.

The Challenge of Writing a Sound Conclusion

The hardest step for me has been writing a sound, reasonable conclusion. It's still challenging, but each assignment gives me a little more confidence. With practice, I know I'll continue to improve.

After all, what good is all the research, analysis, and correlation if you can't explain why you reached your conclusion? Writing is where everything comes together.

In the end, I'm learning that genealogical proof is built step by step, and I’m committed to improving each part of the process. What about you? How are you strengthening your research skills this year? I'd love to hear what part of your own genealogy journey you're focusing on right now.

Let’s learn together.