I see what you are saying. I was able to duplicate this behavior.
I don't know what the NGSQ rules are in this case. Nor do I know if this "quirk" is caused by software considerations, ie that a number has to be assigned to that "slot" in the tree because of software considerations and it doesn't print because it would be confusing to print both numbers.
After all, the numbers were not skipped, they were simply not printed - because the individuals have two numbers in the "organization chart" of the report. One set of numbers under each parent.
I see this as a "no harm, no foul" type of situation.
The bigger problem, as I see it, is not putting the reader on notice that the progeny have this "dual-status" and disclosing the cousin status of the parents. I would like to see a statement in plain English that the partner is a cousin and is located at Number xx in the report.
I don't know what the NGSQ rules are in this case. Nor do I know if this "quirk" is caused by software considerations, ie that a number has to be assigned to that "slot" in the tree because of software considerations and it doesn't print because it would be confusing to print both numbers.
After all, the numbers were not skipped, they were simply not printed - because the individuals have two numbers in the "organization chart" of the report. One set of numbers under each parent.
I see this as a "no harm, no foul" type of situation.
The bigger problem, as I see it, is not putting the reader on notice that the progeny have this "dual-status" and disclosing the cousin status of the parents. I would like to see a statement in plain English that the partner is a cousin and is located at Number xx in the report.