↓ Skip to main content
Charted Roots
  1. Guides/
  2. Research guides/

I want to write a proof summary for a contested fact

1082 words·6 mins
Table of Contents

Use this when a fact about an ancestor doesn’t fall out of a single source — when you have to reconcile conflicting records, infer from indirect evidence, or argue why one interpretation outweighs another. Per the Genealogical Proof Standard, conclusions of that kind require a written proof summary: the evidence cited, how each piece supports or conflicts with the conclusion, and why the conclusion holds up. By the end of this guide, you’ll have a cr_type: proof_summary note in your vault that links to its supporting sources, records confidence and status, and shows up in the person’s Entity Profile View and Control Center.

What you’ll need
#

  • Charted Roots v0.22.17 or later.
  • A person note for the subject of the proof.
  • At least two source notes covering the contested fact. One source isn’t a proof summary — it’s just a citation. Proof summaries exist when evidence has to be weighed.
  • A clear research question. “What was William Anderson’s birth year?” is a proof-summary question. “Tell me about William Anderson” isn’t.

Steps
#

1. Frame the conclusion before opening the modal
#

A proof summary needs three things you should have ready: the conclusion (one sentence — “William Anderson was born in 1817”), the evidence (which sources speak to that conclusion), and the analysis (the reasoning chain). Drafting these in your head or in a scratch note first makes the modal a transcription exercise rather than a thinking exercise.

The example throughout this guide: William Anderson’s birth year, where the 1870 census suggests ~1818 and the 1880 census suggests ~1825 — a seven-year discrepancy that needs to be reconciled.

2. Open the Create Proof Summary modal
#

Two entry points:

  • From the person directly. Control Center → People tab → click the person’s card → expand Proof summaries → New proof. The subject person is pre-filled.
  • From a known conflict. Control Center → Data Quality tab → Source conflicts card → Create proof summary. The subject person, fact type, and conflicting sources are pre-filled. This is the right entry point when the source-conflicts detection surfaced the issue for you.

3. Fill in the header
#

  • Title — short, descriptive. “Birth year of William Anderson (1817)” is enough.
  • Subject person — wikilink to the person note.
  • Fact type — one of the 10 trackable facts (birth date, birth place, death date, etc.). Proof summaries are scoped to a single fact so reports can find them.
  • Conclusion — one sentence stating what you’re proving. “William Anderson was born in 1817 in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.”
  • Status — start at Draft. Move to Needs review when ready for a second pair of eyes, Complete when you’re satisfied, Conflicted if you couldn’t reconcile.
  • Confidence — Possible, Probable, Proven, or Disproven. These map to the GPS standard: Proven means preponderance of evidence, not certainty.

4. Add evidence items, one per source
#

For each source that bears on the conclusion, click Add evidence. Each entry has:

  • Source — wikilink picker (or + to create a new source). The source must already exist as a note in the vault.
  • Information — what this source actually says. Quote it concisely. “Age 52 in 1870 → birth year 1818.”
  • Supports — Strongly, Moderately, Weakly, or Conflicts with.
  • Notes — optional. Use for caveats: “informant unknown,” “transcription not the original,” “approximate age likely rounded.”

Example evidence chain for William’s birth year:

evidence:
  - source: "[[1870 US Census - Pennsylvania]]"
    information: "Age 52, suggesting birth year ~1818."
    supports: moderately
    notes: "Census ages are approximate; informant unknown."
  - source: "[[1880 US Census - Pennsylvania]]"
    information: "Age 55, suggesting birth year ~1825."
    supports: conflicts
    notes: "Conflicts with 1870 by ~7 years."
  - source: "[[Family Bible - Anderson]]"
    information: "Recorded birth: March 12, 1817."
    supports: strongly
    notes: "Contemporary entry, written in original ink, no later additions."

Three evidence items, three different supports values, one of them flagged as a conflict.

5. Write the analysis in the note body
#

The modal saves the structured frontmatter; the actual reasoning goes in the body of the note as markdown. After saving, open the note and write the analysis under the auto-generated headers. Cover:

  • Why the strongest evidence wins. The Family Bible is contemporary, in original ink, with no signs of later alteration — it’s the most direct evidence available.
  • Why the conflict resolves. Census ages are notoriously imprecise; the 1880 figure is consistent with a person rounding their age, while the 1870 figure aligns with the Bible within one year.
  • What you didn’t find. Negative findings count: “No baptism record located in Lancaster County church registers, 1815–1820.” Acknowledging gaps strengthens the proof.

6. Save and verify
#

Save the modal. Charted Roots writes the proof summary as a cr_type: proof_summary note. Verify it appears in:

  • The subject person’s Entity Profile View (Proof summaries section).
  • Control Center → People tab → person card → Proof summaries.
  • The Sources by Role report and DataView/Bases queries scoped to cr_type = "proof_summary".

7. Update research_level if the proof completes Level 5
#

A written proof summary is the qualitative marker that a person has reached Hoitink Level 5 — “GPS Complete: exhaustive research, written proof summary.” If this proof brings the person to that bar, update their research_level to 5 on the person note. See the research progress guide for the full Six Levels framework.

Variations
#

  • Proofs that depend on other proofs. If your conclusion rests on another proof summary (e.g., “William’s parents were John and Mary, as established in proof summary X”), use the depends_on array to record the dependency. The dependency chain is queryable.
  • Disproven conclusions. Set status to Complete and confidence to Disproven. A “this isn’t true and here’s why” proof summary is as valuable as a “this is true” one — sometimes more.
  • Iterative drafting. Status Draft is for in-progress work. The note is fully editable; revisit it as new evidence surfaces. Move status forward as your confidence does.

Related guides#

Reference
#

Found something wrong or unclear? Suggest an edit — opens a pre-filled issue with the guides label.