Okay, thanks, John. That makes sense to me.
Although, its not necessarily a case of more genealogy being done...I guess one possibility is to contact the study and see if they are able to provide the relationship, even if the test takers remain anonymous?
And instead of DNA Confirmed status, the study can be referenced in a statement that there is evidence that supports the relationship? For example, I'm looking at the Spencer Study. Looking at the top group of the four brothers, they've done a pretty good job of defining the branches and there's lots of data. I think that's useful information.
But on the other hand, I co-admin a study where two branches (a southern and northern branch) were shown to be related, and there is a suspected common ancestor. All we've done is show that theory is possible. Yet, several of the participants insist on putting that unproven name as their earliest ancestor. When you look at the report, it looks like there's a MRCA identified, and there's not. So, I guess caveat emptor.