Analysis

What would move the numbers: five named records and three levers

The estimate moves on named, extant records rather than on further argument, and each lever is attached to a specific row. A Norwich marriage licence bond showing a Francis Gurney first wife between 1606 and 1611 would raise Candidate B sharply. The 1626 will of Richard Gurney of Cheddington, if it names a son John living at that date, would raise that row sharply — a will naming children is the one document that turns a predicted household into a documented one. The Great Berkhamsted burial register entry for 28 June 1638 would drop C(ii) to near zero if it reads 'son of John' and restore what he lost if it reads 'son of Thomas'. Proof that the East Dereham household belongs to a different Francis would push Candidate B down toward the record-state rows. And opening the south-Midlands archdeaconry licence series, the Norwich licence bonds of 1606-11 and the Buckinghamshire archdeaconry wills to no result would lower the not-yet-searched row, since that row is largely made of them. Three instruments carry most of the remaining value: Norfolk parish and probate images in the Rivett orbit, a professional examination of the East Dereham register, and a Y-DNA test of the discriminating English-line kit — the last of which bypasses records entirely and is the only instrument that can move the no-record row.

Confidence: Moderate

Topic file location: Identity — assessment