I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I don't see the harm, if you don't want to hold off - as long as you adequately document your case.
But I wouldn't think that's what we call "DNA confirmation" here, ironically enough. That doesn't count as a "paper trail" (which you have to have for DNA confirmation), does it? If I had to invent a term for it, maybe I'd call what you have a "DNA-based hypothesis that the paper trail doesn't contradict".
It's also ironic that what I've seen in genealogical standards (for lack of a better term) seems to put more stock in the paper trail - which can have errors and outright falsehoods - than the physical evidence (DNA), which "doesn't lie". It seems like there ought to be a criteria by which, once satisfied, you could "officially" say "that's my guy!", but I as far as I know there isn't. On the other hand, maybe there are too many curve balls you can run into, to have that.