Five steps from scan to evidence.
Locate the original
Record the archive, parish, book, year, act number and scan link. Keep a crop of the actual entry, so the reading can be checked again.
Read each field
Draft the original-language transcription and English translation. Preserve historic spellings. Mark an uncertain letter or missing word instead of silently filling it in.
Check independently
Compare indexed names field by field with the human-created index. A person returns to the scan when the two disagree. An index is a useful check, not an infallible source.
Test the family link
Compare parents, places, ages, occupations and other identifying details across records. Explain why two entries refer to the same person, and keep an inferred link separate from a directly supported one.
Show the limits
Deliver the sources, unresolved readings, probable links and searches that found nothing. State which missing document could settle the next question.
Two AI readings are not independent proof. In the earlier 13-act pilot, a second model repeated both residual errors made by the first. Agreement alone did not make those names right.
One unclear word should stay one unclear word.
Reading confidence belongs to individual fields. A legible date does not make a faint surname reliable, and a confident model is not a substitute for checking the scan.
We keep the original reading, any uncertain characters, the check performed and unresolved disagreements together. These are evidence notes, not statistically calibrated percentages.
| Sample field | Reading / confidence note | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Given name | Karol · clear reading; checked by the owner. | 1828 birth act |
| Mother’s surname | Donaygrodzka · historic spelling preserved; later records use variants. | 1852 marriage act |
| Priest’s signature | Partly unreadable · brackets remain in the transcription; no invented completion. | 1828 transcription |
| Krystyna’s given names | “Izydora Krystyna” in the reading, “Krystyna” in the index · still flagged for review. | 1832 birth act |
A correctly read record can still belong to someone else.
Records and family relationships receive separate grades. Matching a surname is a lead; proving a parent-child relationship takes the identifying details and an explanation.
A · Direct evidence
The record explicitly supports the identity or relationship; the cited reason is visible.
B · An explained inference
Details fit, but the relationship still depends on an inference. The missing proof is stated.
C · A place to look next
An unconfirmed lead. It stays outside the proved family tree.
Missing evidence is part of the result.
Where no human index exists, a person must check the reading. Low confidence requires closer attention; high confidence does not remove that requirement. Unindexed work is scoped as an AI draft checked by a person, with the additional review time made clear.
A faint scan, a missing volume or a contradictory birthplace may remain unresolved. We record what was searched, what was ruled out and what would change the conclusion. We do not replace a missing act with a plausible story.
The sample includes a death record that says Magnuszew while the earlier birth and marriage support Rozniszew. The conflict is retained in the record notes, so the reader can examine the evidence.
Evidence for the legal question.
Our work finds and explains the records. A birth act can prove a family fact; citizenship also depends on acquisition, later events and the law that applied at the time. A qualified legal reviewer assesses complex citizenship chains, filing and appeals.
Scan crops and research translations are working evidence. An authority may still require certified copies, apostilles or sworn translations. A well-supported family tree is not a promise of citizenship.