Ancestry matches by parent update Aug 2023

I have about 5 instances of Common Ancestors where my sisters sideview assessment is Paternal Side and My sideview assessment of the same common ancestor is Maternal side. A similar number of disagreements between me and my brothers assessments but different common ancestors. I like to think that in these instances the phasing algorithm hasn't quite worked correctly.
I also like to think that they are not using the common ancestors hints to determine the sideview results, as this introduces a degree of inaccuracy as common ancestor hints depend on members trees and as we all know members trees are often inaccurate.
I have taken a note of all the instances where there is a discrepancy with my siblings results and will recheck when there is a new update of Sideview results

 

They all predate the revised system.
So for example I have a common ancestor RK whom I have validated as a 4th cousin 1x removed on my mothers side. For me RK is classified by sideview as maternal side, whereas for my sister RK is classified by sideview as paternal side. Being a fairly close match we both have shared matches for RK. I have 8 shared matches for RK all classified as maternal side. On the other hand my sister has 5 shared matches (all within my 8) where 2 are classified as maternal side and 3 are classified as paternal side.

 

So we now have another update to Matches by Parent (Updated Dec 2023).

I cant see that any my conflicting matches (as in previous post) have been resolved. However the number of Unassigned matches has reduced by about 10% (to 44%) which is encouraging, but this is still nowhere near the proportion of unassigned new matches (<5%).

Lets hope the next update whenever it comes continues the trend of reducing unassigned matches.

 

My December 2023 update has now arrived, and the "by parent" page has a sticker saying "2688 labelled". I'm not sure since when, as it's not quite the number I get. But it's still more than half of them - reducing the unassigneds from over 23% last week to under 9%.

As to whether the process that assigned these is as good as the old process that couldn't - I can't see any way to find out. All I do know is that the six unassigneds from the last ten weeks are, unsurprisingly, still there. And we still have no explanation of the big difference between the fraction in the full list (8.8%) and in the last ten weeks (1.8%).