Who set the control: the "Native" ruler was Central and South American (23andMe, 2015)
Record: the document says itPattern: documents line upLens: our readingOpen: not yet provenDisputed: argued, often by a hostile witness
Year: 2015 · Places: Africa
SUMMARYWho set the control: the "Native" ruler was Central and South American (23andMe, 2015) [Connections: Genetics (honest), Nov 5, 2026]
RECORDIn the same study, the authors write that "we currently use individuals from Central and South American together as a reference set" for Native American ancestry, and that "our estimates of Native American ancestry are conservative." The preprint adds that subpopulation sample sizes were too small to model separately, that some Native ancestry may be assigned to broader East Asian/Native American labels or left "unassigned," and that the values may be lower bounds. Unassigned ancestry averaged "about 1%–2%."
PATTERNthe measuring stick for "Native" in Black Americans was not built from Southeastern or Eastern Woodlands people. The authors themselves call their Native number a likely undercount
LENS (WW9)A colonizer can't choose the control test for aboriginal identity (Rule 14); here the company says its own ruler runs short
OPENhow large the undercount is. It is not known whether a Southeastern reference would move 0.8% a little or a lot. That needs a test with ancient Southeastern genomes as the reference, and none was found published (Part 2)
DISPUTEDan undercount of the Native share does not by itself turn the 73.2% African share Native; the African share is measured against African references with their own gaps
SOURCEBryc et al. 2015, methods text; bioRxiv preprint.