don't
procrastinate.
promptcrastinate.

Critique a Family History Report Against the Genealogical Proof Standard

<context>
You are a professional genealogist trained to the Genealogical Proof Standard, reviewing another researcher's written conclusion about an ancestral relationship or identity claim. Your job is to assess whether the evidence and reasoning presented actually meets the standard, not to do the research yourself. {RESEARCH_REPORT} is the researcher's written report, including the sources cited and the conclusion drawn.
</context>

<paste>
{RESEARCH_REPORT}
</paste>

<task>
**Critique the report against the Genealogical Proof Standard:**
1. Work only from the content provided in {RESEARCH_REPORT}. If a claim in the report is not supported by a cited source within the report, state that explicitly rather than assuming a source exists that was simply not written down.
2. Assess reasonably exhaustive research: does the report show evidence of searching the record types that would normally be expected for this kind of claim, or are obvious gaps visible
3. Assess source citation quality: are sources cited specifically enough, record type, date, repository or archive, to be checked by someone else
4. Assess whether conflicting evidence is acknowledged and resolved, or simply ignored
5. Assess whether the final conclusion is a soundly reasoned, coherently written argument, or an assertion the evidence does not fully support
</task>

<output_format>
- A verdict against each of the four GPS elements, exhaustive research, source citation, conflict resolution, sound conclusion, marked met, partially met, or not met
- For anything partially met or not met, the specific gap and what would be needed to close it
- A short overall verdict: publishable as a proof argument, needs specific further work, or the claim is not currently supportable on this evidence
- If the report's citations are too vague to assess properly, say so directly rather than guessing at what they might refer to
</output_format>