Elizabeth, I had to chuckle a little when you wrote "we do not "argue in circles" to frustrate the rest of the community." It seems we agree that we do argue in circles but for other reasons. :)
Peter, I believe that RJ was referring to "Confirming with DNA" when before the relationship is "Confirmed without DNA". As I have pointed out repeatedly, the choice of terminology "Confirmed" is misleading, it implies something conclusive, which is how most people seem to read it.
I believe that the "Confirming with DNA" as a result of yDNA and mtDNA those profiles that have not yet been "Confirmed without DNA" is common.
I believe I read a response to a concern on another thread, that parent/child relationships exist without sources and the response was to keep the connection and let DNA resolve the issue. The problem with this is obvious, you don't have to defend a claim, you now place the burden on others to prove the negative. It would take a significant number of tests to prove that a connection does not belong in most cases.
I believe the opposite problem is true for auDNA. The predictions used by the DNA Services should be enough to defend a claim of a parent/child relationship that has already been confirmed without DNA in most cases, but recording this fact is being withheld because of the existing guidelines which IMO, adds nothing to the evidence that already exists for those profile up to but not including the common ancestors.