Interested readers should read the entire thread of messages and the successor threads:
* Conflicting evidence ... well, on evidence
* Evidence analysis 3x2 map is adequate in my opinion
* Evidence Analysis: 3x3 vs. 3x2
In one of the responses to the first thread post, Elizabeth Shown Mills revealed that a third category has been added to the Sources, Information and Evidence definitions used to analyze and evaluate evidence in the Genealogical Proof Standard. See her post here.
Elizabeth describes the process this way:
"Over the past nine months, a number of us who teach and write on evidence analysis have debated how to handle this. The result is an expansion of the Evidence Analysis Process Map to a 3x3 configuration rather than a 3x2. Those of you who have had the chance to delve into Tom Jones's just-released guide to evidence will also find the 3x3 treatment there--not as a graphic but as a discussion of principles. The 3x3 graphic will be in the next edition of the Board's "Evidence Analysis Process Map" and the next edition of EE. (But PLEASE don't start emailing to ask when that will be :).
Verbally, the 3x3 is this:
- Original records
- Derivative records
- Authored works
- Primary (firsthand)
- Secondary (secondhand)
"Those of you who are speakers at NGS or have registered and have access to the syllabus PDF, will find the graphic there."