I disagree. In forensics, narrative is called the “theory of the case” and it must be sequentially logical and coherent.
Your personal disgreement is irrational. Forget theories, ideas, fondly held beliefs, what you think is true and what you think isn't true. How can facts be placed into a true narrative if there is very little to go on in the beginning? The only sensible method is to eliminate everything that is doubtful or questionable, start all over with ONLY that which is known, and work in whatever direction that takes. Sometimes dead ends happen. Then you try again. You're just trying to stuff round pegs into square holes.
Empty your cup. Reality can't fit in a mind that is filled with all kinds of stuff that ain't so.
Another detail is the fact - not debatable - that there is a large team of criminals who have been lying, creating a fake backstory, writing false articles and biography, hiding photos, hiding documents, creating forgeries, pulling articles off the internet, out of archives, out of libraries and so on and so forth, and aiding and abetting the hiding of an entire life. Working against this large team who have been at it for years is not easy work, is not like other "forensic" experience you might have had. It is a large freaking criminal enterprise, going on for a long time.
Your problem is you place too high a value on your own ideas, beliefs and methods that might work in other situations but don't work in this one. "Humility" and realizing "I don't know what I thought I knew" are vital.
233 - Working against this large team who have been at it for years is not easy work, is not like other "forensic" experience you might have had.
If you're not a researcher then how can you know "it's not easy work"? Supposition?
Applying your logic, the Mal-Val narrative must be rejected.
Applying your logic is how the “Dreams” narrative has also been extensively debunked. Only documents for which no credible proof of forgery is evident and which can be cross-corroborated can be accepted. That is the case with the BHO Sr.-SADO narrative, which now lacks only DNA to confirm the sperm donor and a credible sub-narrative to account for where SADO was between Feb and Aug 1961.
In comparison, there are NO documents that support the Mal-Val narrative or any of its corollary sub-narratives (no David, Roman Obama is BHO2, Anna S. Obama).