Skip to content

Genealogical Proof Standard

Summary: The five-element standard required for all SAR genealogical conclusions, including the distinction between direct and indirect evidence and the strength of proof required.

Sources: National Society, Sons of the American Revolution.md (GCP Sections 3.0000–3.5008), # Sons of the American Revolution (SAR).md (APG, Appendix D)

Last updated: 2026-04-15

The Five Elements (GCP 3.0000)

All genealogical conclusions on SAR applications — including conclusions about Revolutionary service — must meet the Genealogical Proof Standard (GPS) as defined by the Board for Certification of Genealogists (BCG):

  1. A reasonably exhaustive search of available evidence
  2. Compilation of complete and accurate source citations
  3. Analysis and correlation of the collected evidence
  4. Resolution of any conflicting evidence
  5. Presentation of a soundly reasoned, coherently written conclusion

The standard falls between "preponderance of evidence" (civil law) and "beyond reasonable doubt" (criminal law). Conclusions must be clear and convincing — not merely probable. A devil's advocate objection without supporting evidence is not considered the objection of a reasonable, unbiased person. (source: National Society, Sons of the American Revolution.md, GCP 3.5008)

Source Types

Original sources are weighted more heavily than derivative sources. Derivative sources copy, transcribe, abstract, or repeat information from an original; errors may occur in the process. Microfilmed copies of originals rank above abstracts or transcriptions. (source: # Sons of the American Revolution (SAR).md, Appendix D)

Primary information is provided by someone with firsthand knowledge at the time of the event. Secondary information comes from someone who did not have firsthand knowledge (e.g., birth information on a death certificate, supplied by a surviving relative). Both can appear in the same document.

Direct vs. Indirect Evidence (GCP 3.2003)

Direct evidence explicitly states the conclusion to be proven. A written explanation is usually unnecessary. Note: direct evidence may still be incorrect.

Indirect evidence does not explicitly state the conclusion. It often relies on circumstantial evidence, process of elimination, or deductive reasoning from multiple documents. A written explanation (proof argument) is usually required.

SAR is generous in defining direct evidence: for example, the presence of a child in an 1850–1870 census household is accepted as proof of parentage unless conflicting information exists. (source: # Sons of the American Revolution (SAR).md, Appendix D)

Conflicting Evidence (GCP 3.2001)

If conflicting evidence exists regarding service or lineage, the applicant must: 1. Present the conflicting evidence 2. Provide a written explanation of how to resolve the conflict

Resolution of conflicts for dates and places of birth, death, and marriage is recommended and, in some cases, necessary.

Identity Problems (GCP 3.2002)

An identity problem arises when: - An ancestor could be confused with another person of the same or similar name in the same area - An ancestor went by different names (middle name, initials, maiden vs. married name) - An ancestor is found in different locations at different times

When an identity problem exists, the applicant must present evidence of the problem and evidence to resolve it. Common nicknames (e.g., "Polly" for "Mary") do not create identity problems.

Inferred Information (GCP 3.4001)

Certain relationships may be inferred without being explicitly stated: - 1850, 1860, and 1870 census records showing a family unit are accepted as proof of lineage (parent-child) unless conflicting information exists - Burial in a common family cemetery, combined with other information, can support inferred lineage

Strength of Evidence (GCP 3.5007–3.5008)

Evidence is judged for both admissibility and credibility. A document may be admissible (comes from an acceptable source) yet lack sufficient credibility or strength on its own. The conclusion must be clear and convincing — not merely probable.

  • [[proof-argument]]
  • [[acceptable-sources]]
  • [[inadmissible-sources]]
  • [[revolutionary-service]]
  • [[lineage-proof]]