Jim, I understand your concern but I think this is one of those places where FF still works in reality in spite of the limitations.   I've been trying to come to grips with the differences between the science of FF and the practice of FF and at least feel like I am getting a sense of what works and what doesn't work  well at my present level of understanding.    And ... while I'm going to be diving into the world of "phasing" myself because I want to truly understand the science of it all, I also want to be able to continue to communicate with my "typical" new cousin  who will only take one test and then maybe reluctantly.   And, more importantly I want their data to fit in and be relevant too.       The science component will always be filled with unknowns.   But fortunately over time the knowns grow and the unknowns fade.   That's the nature of the beast.   But there is still the application to keep in perspective as well.    I think the application of FF  works as intended .... it helps us truly find new cousins .... but there is backroom work to be done to make it so.   The principle value of FF to me is that the DNA "match" points out the potential for intersecting family trees within a genealogical timeframe and narrows the field of the search from ALL to a FEW  .... and I believe that the observation of multiple segments "matching" between two individuals at some point assures us that such intersection of trees does exist.   I believe that while individual segments may be IBS vs IBD ... and the subject of much scientific debate  ... the totality of the match is also important in the artful consideration in the observations before us.   In fact we know one thing to be absolutely true ... we are all related.   And the more I look at FF data the more I understand that biologically and believe it observationally .    But ... can the art of reading the data by the average genealogist become sophisticated enough to be  easily used in practice?    I think so .... although even then that "backroom" work seems to presently exceed the desire of most folks to know that much about their ancestry.    You have to build out their trees for them in many cases to make this work.   You have to speculate.   You have to make and test assumptions.    You have to fret over whether you are right or wrong ... and whether or not you are leading yourself and others astray by your speculation.   It clearly isn't nearly as simple as "taking the test" and finding out that you are an 8th cousin to a KING or QUEEN somewhere.    We must not be that cavalier in our salemanship of FF.   I'm convinced that the artful application of FF will continue to grow ALONG with the science.   I think there are limitations both known and probably others to be learned but we do ourselves as genealogists a disfavor I believe if we grow too scientifically rigid in our application of this new tool and that the misreading of such understandable discussions within the practictioner community with raise unnecessary concerns with the average user such that they choose to spend their time and resources elsewhere.     We must always also keep in mind the artful application of the tool in practice such that real people find real cousin connections through its use ..... phased or not.    I can honestly say that I've learned enough simply through the communications that have opened up with FF testing that even without any successes in matching of cousins (which we have had) I'd consider the effort and expenditures successful anyway and will continue to expend my limited resources in the pursuit of the mysteries contained .... herein .    John