I don't understand either. Nothing I have ever said implies any intention to collect bits and pieces of evidence and leave them lying about, unconnected. Just the opposite, the whole purpose of collecting the evidence is be able to build justifiable conclusions. They are linked into the conclusions they support. There is nothing odd here. This is simply the historical and scientific processes, where evidence is gathered and conclusions derived therefrom. Why WOULDN'T you wish to draw a reasonable conclusion from the facts on the ground, though I have no idea what message you are trying to imply by saying that facts are on the ground? What do you mean by a "real person?" Do you believe a simple record you found from 200 years ago is a "real person." No, it's not. It's nothing but an item of evidence. It's up to you to do the necessary research and make the necessary conclusions as who that bit of evidence refers to. In many cases this is a very hard, and often impossible, decision to make. When you are doing this stuff for real the notion of a "real person" is the hardest concept of all. I recommend you try to get a better understanding of the differences between person-based and record- based genealogy. I think you are colored in your thinking by only considering person-based work. In person-based genealogy you know exactly who you are looking for and you simply find and file away the records you gather with the correct person. Eventually you reach the point that you don't fully know who you are looking for and you have to collect the records first and decide who the persons were later. This is the border between person-based and record-based that is important. All the stuff about persona and evidence and making conclusions is geared to the world you enter when you must embrace the records-based world. This is the world you enter when you need to become a real genealogist. When you do it right, you don't waste time.