Become a Certified Genealogist

BCG’s bylaws provide for a system of discipline and dispute resolution in order to enhance public confidence in the work of Board-certified genealogists.

BCG's bylaws provide that each certified associate be subject to discipline for conduct in violation of the Genealogist's Code. [Bylaws: Article 9, Sections 1-5.]

BCG will provide its dispute resolution service as an expeditious and low-cost alternative to litigation, to resolve disputes between its certified associates and any members of the public who agree to accept its determination as a final and binding resolution of the matters in dispute, and consent to enforcement of the board's determination by appropriate legal process in any tribunal having jurisdiction over the person or property of the parties. (The consent form is available as a PDF file here.)

The dispute resolution process is set out in the Discipline and Dispute Resolution policies (available as a PDF file here) and consists, first, of mediation and, second, of binding arbitration.

When a dispute complaint against a certified associate is resolved during mediation or arbitration, copies of the following documents will be placed in the certified associate’s permanent file:

– the original letter of complaint;
– the final letter from BCG to the complainant and the certified associate confirming that a settlement was reached during mediation or arbitration.

The certified person shall have the right to appeal the determination of the Executive Committee as to individual discipline to the full board in writing within thirty (30) days after receipt of the executive committee’s determination.

The BCG trustees, when deciding appeals from executive committee decisions on complaints or disciplinary actions, shall consider only evidence and complaint-related records previously available to the executive committee, unless clearly relevant evidence was withheld from the executive committee by an interested party. The decision of the board shall be by two-thirds affirmative vote and shall be final and binding, and shall be made available to the certified person in writing with reasonable promptness and included in the certified person’s permanent file.

New research-category applications are evaluated using standards-based rubrics that address all aspects of the work, including documentation, research, writing, and adherence to the Genealogical Proof Standard.

Study of these rubrics will supply insight into the criteria BCG's judges consider during evaluations. Applicants may also use the rubrics to assess their own work.

For the rubrics used to evaluate new research-category applications, updated as of January 2021, click here.

Renewal portfolios are also evaluated using rubrics, although these are broadly framed in order to accommodate the wide range of work samples that renewal applicants may submit.

For the rubrics used to evaluate renewal portfolios, click here.

CGG portfolios are also evaluated using standards-based rubrics that address all aspects of the work, including extent of genetic evidence, documentation, research, writing, and adherence to the Genealogical Proof Standard.

For the rubrics used to evaluate new CGG portfolios, click here.

BCG currently offers three credentials:

• Certified Genealogist (CG), a research credential held by all BCG associates

Certified Genetic Genealogist (CGG), an optional category credential.
• Certified Genealogical Lecturer (CGL), an optional teaching credential

In the last forty years, some credentials have been developed and dropped from usage, including Certified Lineage Specialist (CLS), Certified American Indian Lineage Specialist (CAILS), Certified Genealogical Records Specialist (CGRS), and Certified Genealogical Instructor (CGI). These credentials are mentioned in older published works.

Fees are assessed at two stages of the application process: when you submit your preliminary application and when you submit the final application with your portfolio. Board-certified genealogists also pay an annual maintenance fee. See the current fee schedule.

No. In professional fields (as opposed to some technical fields), a certificate or a degree from a college, university, or institute attests only that you have completed certain educational coursework. Certification, which determines whether you have acquired expertise in a field, is a separate matter whose function is performed by boards or bars that are independent of teaching institutions.

No, BCG does not certify applicants as having geographic or other specialities. Applicants specify an area in which they frequently work so BCG can select a suitable document for Requirement 3, the BCG-supplied document. However, this is the only reason applicants are asked to identify an area of special interest. A certified associate who wants to declare a specialty is free to do so as long as they truly and realistically portray their abilities as prescribed by the fifth bullet under “to protect the public” in the Genealogist’s Code. BCG previously offered several specialized research credentials. For example, it offered credentials for lineage specialists and American Indian lineage specialists, but these credentials have been discontinued.

Genealogy is the study of families in genetic, social, and historical context. Within that framework, it is the study of the people who compose a family and the relationships among them. At the individual level, it is biography, because we must reconstruct each individual life in order to separate each person’s identity from that of others bearing the same name. Beyond this, many researchers also find that genealogy is a study of communities because kinship networks have long been the threads that create the fabric of each community’s social life, politics, and economy.

Good genealogists use every resource and tool available, emphasizing original records created by informants with firsthand information. Genealogists have long studied economics, geography, law, politics, religion, and society in order to properly interpret records, identify individuals and relationships correctly, and place their families in historical context. The modern field of genetics has added another valuable tool to their intellectual toolbox.

Serious genealogists do specialize, as do all professional and scholarly fields, because no one can be an authority in all aspects of any subject. Some genealogists specialize in an ethnic group, some in a geographic region, and some in a particular type of resource such as military or immigration records. Some specialize in work with the legal system, others in medical research. The advent of genetics has created yet another specialty: genealogists whose expertise lies in the interpretation of DNA results and its application to genealogical research problems.

Consult the online Directory of Certified Genealogists for certified persons.

Immediately

Looking for more examples and templates is probably not going to help. Instead consider changing your approach. Crafting citations involves a number of basic principles and many common elements. Once you understand why things are done a certain way, you should be able to more easily write citations for every record you encounter. Studying examples should help you gain the necessary understanding; merely copying examples will not. This approach may take time, but once you grasp the fundamentals, you will have less need to constantly look things up. For a useful supplement to the explanations in Elizabeth Shown Mills’s Evidence Explained, see Mastering Genealogical Documentation by Thomas W. Jones.

Submission of work products to BCG for credentialing is considered private sharing. If you are the DNA test taker and, thus, owner of the match list, you may provide details about your own matches without permission. However, if you use details from another living person’s match list, even if you manage that kit, BCG asks you to provide evidence of that person’s informed consent to disclose details of that match list to BCG judges. Email authorizations are sufficient. Authorizations are not included in the page count.

A statement that the Civil War began in 1861 is common knowledge because that date is easily found in an array of sources. However, a statement that a certain individual enlisted in a specific unit on a certain day is not common knowledge. Many of the facts that genealogists establish are not common knowledge, including statements about an individual’s parents and dates and places for events in their lives.

Evidence Analysis

The GPS is the Genealogical Proof Standard, which all genealogists use to evaluate the quality of research and the reliability of conclusions. For more information on the GPS, see Genealogy Standards, 1-4.

The Internet is a virtual repository. Like any repository, its materials vary widely in quality. Genealogical standards call for appraising our sources according to whether they are original records (including image copies) or derivative records, or authored works. They also call for evaluating the information within the source as to whether the informant had firsthand (primary) or secondhand (secondary) knowledge of the facts or whether the informant’s identity is undetermined. The repository is irrelevant to this process. What is relevant for good research is that (a) we use a variety of repositories-online and offline-in order to find all needed information; and (b) we thoughtfully and accurately evaluate our sources, information, and evidence so that we arrive at a sound conclusion.

Determining reliability is not a simple matter. The terms “primary source” and “secondary source” theoretically distinguish reliable sources from potentially unreliable ones. As a point of fact, however, in various fields the terms are used ambiguously by researchers in a number of contradictory ways. Attempting to make a simple either-or choice does not enable a researcher to evaluate historical evidence reliably.

Genealogical practice appraises reliability in three ways. We appraise the source (its physical form), the quality of the information within that source, and the type of evidence we can draw from that information. Each of those aspects has three basic qualities. The following provides a brief tutorial.

Sources:
Sources can be people, artifacts, documents, or publications (printed or digital). They are either

• original records, that is, those not based on a prior record;
• derivative records, that is, records created from prior records by manipulating their content-as with abstracts, compilations, databases, extracts, transcripts, and translations; or
• authored works, that is, written products that synthesize information from many prior sources and present the writer’s own conclusions, interpretations, and thoughts.

Information:
In using a source, we evaluate separately each information statement, to determine whether it offers

• primary information, that is, details provided by someone with firsthand knowledge of the “fact” reported;
• secondary information, that is, details provided by someone with secondhand or more-distant knowledge (aka, hearsay); or
• undetermined information, that is, details provided by someone whose identity is not known.

Evidence:

Information that is relevant to the problem is considered evidence. It may be one of three basic types:

• direct evidence, that is, relevant information that seems to answer the research question all by itself;
• indirect evidence, that is, relevant information that cannot, alone, answer the research question; rather, it must be combined with other information to arrive at an answer; or
• negative evidence, that is, evidence arising from an absence of a situation or information in extant records where that information might be expected.

A map illustrating this evaluation process appears here.

The best time to submit a preliminary application (also known as going on the clock) will differ from person to person. Some individuals prefer to work on their portfolios without the pressure of a deadline, even if the deadline can be deferred by requesting an extension and paying a fee. Others prefer to go on the clock so they can ask questions and receive encouragement on BCG’s ACTION list. You are free to choose whatever suits you best. When deciding, keep in mind that the types of questions that can be answered on the ACTION list are limited and you are responsible for your own educational development. You should also consider that going on the clock protects you from requirement changes for the next year. Requirement changes are rarely so significant that you would have to start over on a project. It is nonetheless in your interests to submit a preliminary application once you are within a year of completing your portfolio.

Over the last decade, the number of successful applicants has averaged 40 per cent per year.

BCG receives many applications from individuals who have not undertaken any development activities. They are passionate about genealogy but have not engaged in any serious study. As a result, their work typically reveals significant gaps in knowledge that prevent them from preparing a successful application.

The chief cause of failure are weak skills that pervade a portfolio. These may include incomplete or inaccurate documentation, superficial research, use of unreliable evidence, analysis oversights, or unsound conclusions. Unsuccessful portfolios often rely heavily on basic record types such as censuses and vital records while overlooking or misinterpreting important sources such as probate records and deeds.

Not following instructions is rarely, if ever, the sole cause of failure. The primary focus of an evaluation is on the quality of the submitted work, and when portfolios fail it is invariably because the work has substantive flaws. However, not following the instructions can be a contributing factor if it results in an applicant submitting inappropriate work samples. You should therefore take care to supply the type of work that the Application Guide requests. This will ensure BCG’s judges have sufficient material of the right type to thoroughly judge your ability to meet standards.

Successful portfolios are available for examination in the BCG exhibit booth at major genealogical conferences and institutes. Viewing them offers general insight into characteristics of a successful portfolio that many applicants find helpful, although you will not have time to closely study the work. Confidence in how well your work measures up may also flow from concentrated study and participation in high-quality learning activities.

No, it’s not true. The question reflects a misunderstanding of BCG’s requirements. The BCG Application Guide stipulates that you cannot use your own family for Requirement 5, the research report for another person. However, it is perfectly acceptable-and indeed common practice-for applicants to use their own family for the other requirements.

Portfolios may contain research from multiple places (states and/or countries). Portfolio research is not limited to one geographic area. All submissions must be in English.

A mentor may be helpful but is not necessary. A mentor cannot educate you about every aspect of research, record interpretation, and evidence analysis. The many educational programs and publications that exist today better serve that purpose. A mentor, however, can serve as a role model and offer valuable guidance and encouragement.

If you think you would benefit from having a mentor, consider asking a professional you know and respect-someone who works in your own specialty. BCG does not assign mentors; the best mentorships develop naturally. A mentoring relationship might arise during educational or networking opportunities such as institutes and conferences or through membership in the Association of Professional Genealogists and participation in APG’s online mail list. You can also identify prospective mentors by regularly reading professional journals and contacting authors about shared interests. Conversely, publication of your own work in respected journals can bring you to the attention of more established professionals who see promise in your work and contact you.

BCG invites preliminary applicants to subscribe to an email mentoring group called ACTION (Aids to Certification Testing: Interactive Online Networking). This list does not provide educational preparation; it will not teach applicants about sources, citations, analysis, or any other aspect of research. It does, however, provide a supportive forum where applicants can meet other applicants, and knowledgeable BCG associates are available to answer questions about the certification process and requirements.

Certification is a test of an individual’s abilities. Therefore, the work you submit in a certification application is expected to be entirely your own. None of the material in your portfolio should have been reviewed, critiqued, or proofread by anyone other than yourself. A mentor, colleague, instructor or other individual may give you feedback on samples of your work that are not intended for your portfolio, but no one should review or critique material you plan on submitting to BCG.

BCG recognizes the important role of collaboration in research and does not expect researchers to work in a vacuum, but certification is a test of your skills and knowledge. If you submit a collaborative effort, your portfolio evaluators have no way to know what part of the work reflects your own expertise. BCG does not intend that applicants should never collaborate. But when you apply for certification, the work you submit needs to be your own-your own analyses, your own correlations, your own citations, your own organization, your own writing, and your own conclusions.

A certification application calls for specific work products that meet specific standards and demonstrate specific types of knowledge that span a broad range of skills. Regardless of where it was published, a previously published work rarely contains all the elements that an applicant is asked to demonstrate. In the rare case in which a previously published work does meet all criteria of a portfolio requirement, prior publication would raise questions as to what aspects of the work were purely those of the applicant and what aspects represent editorial emendations. However, if you have a published work that meets all the criteria of a portfolio requirement, you may submit the work in its original pre-published form.

A family tree website, like other types of published work, would rarely fulfill any of BCG’s specific requirements. However, the fact that an applicant has published some information about a family in one or another forum does not mean that the applicant cannot use that family for a portfolio requirement that entails a significantly different treatment of the subjects.

If you are uncertain whether your previous use of a particular project renders it ineligible for inclusion in an application, then it may be best to choose another one about which you have no doubt. Successful applicants are those with a solid base of experience and will have a variety of projects from which to choose. If you find that your choices are limited, it may be a sign that your plans to apply for certification are premature.

Yes, BCG encourages its associates to publish, and published material is permitted in renewal portfolios. Published material is ineligible only for the original application in which applicants make a baseline demonstration of skills.

Yes, it means you should choose another report. This is consistent with the FAQ “Why can’t I submit collaborative work?” above.

You need to disclose any use of AI beyond the permissible exceptions: search tools, spelling and grammar checking, and translation tools (excluding the BCG-supplied document). This disclosure allows portfolio judges to understand which portion of the work is not entirely your own.

Yes. You should choose work products for submission in your portfolio that have not been reviewed or critiqued by AI. The BCG Application Guide, 2021 states that “No material in an initial application may have been reviewed, critiqued, or proofread by another individual.”¹ BCG’s application process evaluates your competence in research, documentation, analysis and correlation, conflict resolution, and writing. Vetting any portion of your portfolio with AI, beyond the permissible exceptions, provides you with external feedback and prevents BCG from evaluating work that is solely your own.

1. Board for Certification of Genealogists, The BCG Application Guide, 2021, p. 3.

Contact BCG’s Executive Director to request another document.

Spelling and grammar checking tools flag incorrect usage or spelling, or suggest better grammar, sentence structure, spelling, and punctuation. For example, Microsoft Word indicates misspellings and grammar errors such as subject and verb agreement. Grammarly makes suggestions for grammar, writing, spelling, and punctuation. Use of these kinds of tools is allowed in a CG new application portfolio. Asking generative AI to draft, rewrite, or revise portfolio elements is not allowed.

All applicants for these credentials have already demonstrated in their initial CG portfolio that their work meets genealogy standards. Thus, the limitation on the use of generative AI is less restrictive. If the applicant uses AI assistance, they should disclose their use of AI beyond the permissible exceptions for the initial CG portfolio.

You are responsible for crafting citations that meet Genealogy Standards 1–8. Not every citation sample, template, or generator will ensure adherence to those essential standards. Standard 5 describes required citation elements. Standard 6 names Evidence Explained and The Chicago Manual of Style as guides you may use for principles and formats. Standard 6 further states that “Other styles and systems are not standard for genealogical writing.”²

2. Board for Certification of Genealogists, Genealogy Standards, second edition, revised (Nashville: Ancestry.com, 2021), p. 8.

BCG acknowledges the numerous benefits of AI in the field of genealogy and family history and encourages responsible use of this innovative and ubiquitous technology. However, new CG application portfolios must reflect work products created solely by the applicant. This allows judges to evaluate the original work of the applicant and not the work of a collaborative effort.

BCG limits portfolios to no more than 150 pages because that is all it needs to effectively assess an individual’s skills. For many years, applicants were free submit to larger portfolios, but this practice was ended because it created unnecessary work for both applicants and judges.

If your page count in a new application exceeds 150 pages, then you have likely misunderstood one or more of the requirements. One common explanation is that applicants think they must submit all of the documents underlying the case study and kinship-determination project. This is not so. Images are needed for any signature comparisons but are otherwise rarely necessary to illustrate a point. The only requirement for which multiple documents might be required is the research report. The 150-page allowance considers the number of copies that reports might include but if your portfolio is too big your research report may be unnecessarily large. Verbose explanations and unnecessary double-spacing can also swell the page count.

Most renewal portfolios are well below the page limit. Choosing renewal work samples such as case studies and proof arguments will reduce page count and both are excellent choices for the GPS requirement.

No, Board-certified genealogists set their own fees.

No, the stipulation against proofreading applies only to initial applications and is intended to ensure all applicants can work at a basic level without assistance. Associates are otherwise free to use proofreaders as they see fit.

Yes, absolutely. BCG encourages applicants to resubmit and would like to see you ultimately succeed in your goal of achieving certification.

This decision is up to you, but it is not a step you should rush. Work on the problems noted by your judges. Remedying the weaknesses they have identified will usually require additional study and more hands-on experience.

Applicants who reapply are subject to the same requirements as those applying for the first time. Your new portfolio should therefore contain Requirements 1 through 7 as described in The BCG Application Guide. You will need to follow the instructions in whatever edition of the Guide is in use when you submit a new Preliminary Application Form. The latest edition of the Application Guide can be downloaded for no charge. This will allow you to stay abreast of any changes in the requirements.

No applicant may submit material that has been reviewed, critiqued, or proofread by another individual. Once your work samples have been evaluated by the judges, they are therefore inappropriate for reuse in a BCG application. New work samples must be submitted. Preparing new material will increase your level of experience and help you develop the skills your application should demonstrate.

The fees for reapplying are the same as for first-time submissions. This means you will again be subject to the preliminary application fee as well as the final application fee. These are standard fees for anyone submitting a portfolio. The same amount of work will be required to evaluate a second application as was needed for the first. To see the exact fees in effect at a given time, consult the current fee schedule.

When you are ready, download a copy of the latest Application Guide as well as a copy of the Preliminary Application Form. Complete and submit the form to the BCG office along with the preliminary application fee. The office will send you a new Category Application Form and a new BCG document.

Yes, all preliminary applicants are invited to join BCG’s online support group ACTION (Aids to Certification Testing: Interactive Online Networking), regardless of whether they are applying for the first time or reapplying.

No, BCG does not require specific development activities, but statistics show there is a higher success rate among applicants who participate in intensive activities such as institutes or the ProGen study program. Applicants who are self-taught and neglect to thoroughly absorb important works by the field’s most knowledgeable researchers and instructors are more likely to fail.

Your analysis should be thorough. Standards 35-45 and new-application rubrics DW6-DW9 are an excellent guide to the issues you should address.

Yes, your approach is valid as long as your question follows The BCG Application Guide’s stipulation that the question should involve someone named in the document and say what you hope to find out about him or her. It should also meet Standard 10’s guidelines for questions that are sufficiently broad yet also sufficiently focused to be tested against the Genealogical Proof Standard.

A research report is a unique work product that provides a detailed account of work undertaken to answer a research question. Presentation of the raw data found during that investigation is one of a report’s most important components. Genealogies, biographical sketches, case studies, and lineage-society applications serve different purposes and don’t qualify as reports, even when written for another person.

It is not unusual for preliminary discussions to go through several stages before there is a meeting of the minds on how to proceed, and such discussions will be essential if the client’s goal is unrealistic or lacks an effective research question. If this process ends without the client supplying a written account of what was agreed on, then before commencing work the onus is on you to write a letter of understanding, summarize the points that were discussed, and ask the client to sign it.

If you are unable to provide the commissioning individual’s authorization, your judges will be unable to evaluate whether you appropriately responded to the client’s wishes as is required by genealogical standards and by the code of ethics. It would be better to submit a different work sample that meets genealogy standards, the code of ethics, and the requirements of The BCG Application Guide.

You cannot submit a link to a Dropbox folder. You can use a program that merges the documents from the Dropbox with your report. The pages in Dropbox will count towards your 150-page limit. A report with many pages of attachments is therefore not a wise choice for your portfolio.

Also, the report requirement of BCG’s application process emphasizes analysis of the research problem, the planning of sound and comprehensive research, the evaluation and interpretation of each finding, the correlation and analysis of the evidence, and the validity of conclusions—rather than how many documents we can find. A well-researched problem may generate few documents, but the ultimate test of how good we are as genealogists will be how well we handle those few documents to generate more possibilities and move the project toward resolution.

It means the research report should not be about your ancestors, your spouse's ancestors or the siblings of any of those people. You may not, for example, research the parentage of your or your spouse's great grandmother. You may research your sister's husband's family, or your spouse's brother's wife's family, or a similar relationship in a more distant generation.

The best way to select a case study is to have several completed options from which to choose. The process of researching and writing up several is an excellent way to develop your skills, and seeing each one in its final form can help you decide which one is best. This same approach will also serve you well with the other portfolio requirements. Submitting the first case study, research report or kinship-determination project you ever do is generally not a good idea.

The word “significant” should speak for itself. You should choose a substantive problem. A simple, easily answered question will not show much skill. Applicants generally have no problem understanding the first of the two options. A question of relationship typically involves connecting parents and child. There is more confusion about what is meant by a question of identity. Identity involves distinguishing between same-named people. It does not mean you can submit a study about a single identifying characteristic of a person such as their date or place of birth.

Given today’s widespread interest in genealogy, it is difficult to find a family that someone has not already pursued. BCG does not require that you do so. Requirement 6, the kinship-determination project, asks you to create a genealogy, lineage, or pedigree that meets acceptable standards of quality, as described in Genealogy Standards.

Your presentation is expected to be soundly developed and well reasoned. You will use many sources to achieve that. Some will be reliable, and some will not. That means you will exercise many judgments about the quality of your sources, the quality of the information those sources present, and the strength of the evidence that you draw from each piece of information-both individually and collectively.

As with any research project, when others have published misinformation or reached conclusions you feel are in error, you should correct the existing work and support your corrections with sound evidence, direct or indirect. Following genealogical standards, your work should emphasize original sources rather than derivatives. For at least two parent-child relationships in different generations, you must present two proof summaries, two proof arguments, or one of each to justify your conclusion.

If the pre-existing work on a particular family meets the standards set forth in Genealogy Standards you should choose a different family.

Requirement 6, the kinship-determination project, calls for a three-generation study that is either a narrative genealogy, a narrative lineage or a narrative pedigree. To achieve a reliable and meaningful account of each historical person, you should provide not just vital statistics but an account of their lives, demonstrating the use of a wide range of reliable materials that not only put them into their society but also help to prove their identity and separate them from other same-name individuals of their place and time. All questionable evidence should be carefully analyzed and all conclusions explained. For each couple, you should also identify all known children with their vital statistics and evidence of kinship.

Your project should contain proof summaries, proof arguments, or one of each justifying your kinship conclusions for at least two parent-child relationships in different generations. Beyond this, however, it is up to you to decide which relationships need proof summaries or arguments. In a lineage, they might be needed for the individuals in the main line or they might be needed to establish parentage of a sibling or spouse. The type of proof provided should adhere to Standard 60’s requirement for selection of appropriate options. Proof for all of the other relationships in the project should similarly be established using proof statements, summaries or arguments as appropriate for the context. What is appropriate in each case will depend on the evidence.

No, all of them are valid choices, equally allowing for a good display of skills. Most applicants choose to submit a lineage. It is generally less work than a genealogy, and an average-size family provides plenty of scope for evaluation purposes.

Three systems (NGSQ, Register, and Sosa-Stradonitz) have become the standard in American genealogy. For discussion of these systems see:

• Joan F. Curran, CG; Madilyn Coen Crane; and John H Wray, Ph.D., CG, Numbering Your Genealogy: Basic Systems, Complex Families, and International Kin, NGS Special Publication no. 97 (Arlington: National Genealogical Society, 2008).
• The BCG Genealogical Standards Manual (Orem, Utah: Ancestry, 2000). Appendices E, F, and G in this manual provide extensive discussion of formats for genealogies, lineages, and pedigrees along with annotated examples.
• Genealogy Standards, 2nd Edition, revised (Nashville, Tenn.: Ancestry, 2021), Standard 72.

Genealogical standards call for writing that follows “widely accepted conventions and rules,” which means many style guides and dictionaries will provide suitable guidance about capitalization, spelling, punctuation, grammar, and usage that will meet Standard 70 for technically correct writing. The Chicago Manual of Style is one such widely accepted style guide.

Just as there is not a static number of sources needed to demonstrate reasonably exhaustive research, there is not a static number of matches needed to prove a conclusion. Standards 53--Extent of DNA evidence, and 50---Assembling conclusions from the evidence are closely related and provide best practice guidance to help us answer the "how much is enough" question. Essentially, a researcher should include enough atDNA matches to eliminate competing hypotheses for an answer to a specific research question. Thus, it is better to not focus on the number of matches, but rather to focus on what each match adds to the body of evidence that eliminates potential ancestors as the source of the shared atDNA. For example, X-DNA matches might provide added value to the body of evidence because the unique inheritance pattern may aid in eliminating hypothetical ancestors. Standard 50 reminds us that we assemble evidence so that the body of evidence is compatible with a single answer to the research question. Documentary research provides the basis for pedigree evaluation that also helpsus to select atDNA matches that provide the best evidence to rule out multiple common ancestral pathways. So as is frequently the case in genealogy, "it depends" is the right answer.

When two people share a DNA segment, they could have inherited it from common ancestors. Identifying those common ancestors begins broadly by considering all ancestors in each person’s pedigree as the shared DNA’s source. Correlation, analysis, and inferential reasoning systematically eliminate parts of the pedigree from consideration. Pedigree evaluation for both people is indispensable. Eliminating branches assures that you address the possibility of multiple common ancestors or inaccurate trees.

Standard 52 does not require documenting every parent-child connection on every ancestral line on every relevant match’s pedigree. The number of pedigrees requiring full pedigree evaluation depends on the research problem. Detailing selected pedigrees within a portfolio element is not always necessary. Citing online, publicly accessible, source-cited trees can suffice. If, however, an online tree includes anonymization, the applicant discloses those anonymized parent-child relationships within their BCG submission.

Standard 52 does not specify how to evaluate pedigrees. It asks genealogists to consider the variables of multiple common ancestral paths and pedigrees’ accuracy, depth, and completeness. Gaps in relevant pedigrees must be mitigated. A gap could be the source of shared DNA despite known common ancestors in compared pedigrees.

See "Skillbuilding: The Truth About Pedigree Evaluation."

Some strategies to address issues in tree completeness include but are not limited to

• • Autosomal DNA analysis techniques including clustering, genetic networks, chromosome mapping, visual phasing, and segment triangulation
  • Clearly articulated explanations justifying the discard of ancestral branches as irrelevant to the research question
  • Clearly articulated discussions of correlation of genetic matches from both sides of a common ancestral couple (assuming those parents do not share common ancestors.)

All scientific conclusions rest on the ability of others to access research data to verify or dispute a conclusion, which otherwise would resemble fiction. Standard 54 describes the level of detail necessary for others to verify or challenge genetic relationship conclusions. If readers cannot see details of shared DNA, they cannot verify the conclusion.

A researcher might use one of the following strategies to meet Standard 54:

• • Upload the data to a public website, with test takers’ informed consent.
  • Embed or append screenshots of data in a privately shared file.
  • Authors seeking publication of a case study may provide editors with access to match lists, depending on company terms of use. If editors verify the results, include this opinion in the publication. Authors encourage test takers to change shared passwords after editors complete their reviews.

Private sharing provides the ability to discuss details of living people with one person or within a small group of people who are subject to ethical guidelines prohibiting redisclosure. Private sharing is standard practice for supervisory relationships, credentialing, teaming, and scholarship in many professions. Privately sharing information about living people is common, for example, in ethical genealogists’ reports that identify, without permission, potential heirs, biological kin of adoptees, and relatives of service members unaccounted for from past conflicts.

Publishing implies dissemination and distribution to the public. Recorded lectures are publications requiring either informed consent of identified individuals or anonymizing. Similarly, lectures outside small closed groups require informed consent of identified living individuals or anonymizing.

BCG accepts data about deceased people and requires neither permission from heirs nor documentation verifying the death.

You need permission to publish if data such as the amount and location of shared autosomal DNA, Y-STR values, or mitochondrial mutations is shared together with the test-taker’s name, account name, or other personally identifying information such as names of parents, grandparents, or other close biological relatives.

It is always best to contact living individuals to determine their wishes about publication. This can lead to one of four results:

1. 1. The person gives permission to publish their DNA data together with personally identifying details such as their name and parents' names.
   2. The person gives permission to publish their DNA data but wishes to be anonymized. This anonymization may extend to the individual’s parents, and in some cases, grandparents.
   3. The person declines permission to publish anything about them or their DNA. If so, we honor and respect their wishes. We might seek evidence from a comparable test taker.
   4. The person does not respond. In this case, we may publish their DNA data but not personally identifying details such as their name. It may also be prudent to anonymize information about their parents or grandparents, even if those individuals are deceased. Publishing anonymized DNA test results of a non-responsive match is a strategy of last resort.

The decision about how much family information to omit depends on the unique case. Genealogists employ common sense and empathy to make the decision.

Matches might not notice messages sent through the testing company's communication systems, requiring further work to contact non-responsive matches. If the match is not uniquely identified, researching trees or surname lists they have posted might identify them. Profiles might give details like location and age. A shared match who knows the non-responsive match might facilitate direct communication. Obituaries might name the match or other living relatives. Public databases, social media, and Google searches can help. Responses are more likely through social media. Search for an address or phone number.

Submission of work products to BCG for credentialing is considered private sharing. If you are the DNA test taker and, thus, owner of the match list, you may provide details about your own matches without permission. However, if you use details from another living person’s match list, even if you manage that kit, BCG asks you to provide evidence of that person’s informed consent to disclose details of that match list to BCG judges. Email authorizations are sufficient. Authorizations are not included in the page count.

Privacy considerations apply to lectures using genetic evidence. Genealogists make a diligent effort to contact living individuals to discuss privacy options. If the individual provides informed consent to share their details for education purposes, the lecturer acknowledges it in some combination of visual aids, accompanying educational materials, and oral statement. As with other types of work, a lecturer honors an individual’s privacy wishes. Lecturers may anonymize the person and present the DNA data of non-responsive matches. Sometimes, it may be prudent to extend the anonymization to the living person’s parents or grandparents, even if they are deceased. No permission is needed to anonymize or blur information when screen images are used to teach, including about testing company tools.

Because genetic evidence can provide indirect evidence of a specific relationship, proof arguments are the best choice for presenting conclusions about a genetic relationship. They detail the evidence and reasoning supporting the conclusion.

When discussing Y-DNA test results, the information items that should be included for each test taker whose results are claimed as supporting a common Y-line are

• • testing company used
  • whether the test takers are in the same Y-DNA haplogroup (or the same branch with some being placed on later sub-branches)
  • number of markers each person tested or the test name (for example, Y-37 STR, Y-111 STR, Big Y-700, Y Elite, YSEQ-Delta, etc.)
  • which marker(s), if any, differ between the test takers (by marker name and value; for example, DYS449 has a value of 29 in all test
    takers except John Smith who has a value of 30)
  • if pertinent, which markers vary from the modal haplotype
  • whether the differing markers are known to be fast-mutating or have some other relevant characteristic such as test takers sharing a rare marker value

The information above should be included even if the data can be found online by viewing a public DNA project page. The work sample should contain enough information to evaluate the conclusion even if the web page becomes inaccessible or is modified. Not including this information would be similar to stating that a probate file provides evidence for a father-son relationship but not stating which document and statement within the probate file support the assertion.

In some cases, additional information may be included to support a conclusion. For example, if the differing markers can be mapped to the likely ancestor who first had the mutation that might be discussed (when all descendants of son X have the same mutation and the descendants of other sons in the tree do not have that mutation this may provide supporting evidence that the tree contains the proper relationship links). Other examples include whether a test taker is in a rare Y-DNA haplogroup, a haplogroup is primarily found in one biogeographical area, the value of a particular marker is rare, and so on.

When discussing mtDNA test results, the information that should be included for each test taker whose results are claimed as supporting a common mtDNA line are

• • testing company used
  • whether the test takers are in the same mtDNA haplogroup (or the same branch with some being placed on later sub-branches)
  • test resolution or number of markers each person tested (HVR1 only, HVR1 and HVR2, full mtDNA sequence tests, whole genome sequence, etc.)
  • which mtDNA locations, if any, differ between the test takers (by marker/location name and value, for example, Jane Doe and Mary Smith share the mutation A247G, but only Jane has 315.1C)
  • if pertinent, which reference sequence was used for comparisons (CRS or RSRS)
  • whether the differing markers have some relevant characteristic such as a test taker having a heteroplasmy

The information above should be included even if the data can be found online by viewing a public DNA project page. The work sample should contain enough information to evaluate the conclusion even if the web page becomes inaccessible or is modified. Not including this information would be similar to stating that a probate file provides evidence for a mother-child relationship but not stating which document and statement within the probate file supports the assertion.

In some cases, additional information may be included to support a conclusion. For example, if a test taker is in a rare mtDNA haplogroup, the haplogroup is primarily found in one biogeographical area, and so on.