So, do your unit histories match USAF Study 85? If not, there is no basis of any type to claim accurate and validated reporting by the recorded credits in the books. USAF Study 85 as gently tweaked at USAFHRC by folks like Olynyk, Jack Cook, myself and a couple of other folks with proof matching the credit to the a/c destroyed. That number is far less than 1% (+) over Study 85.
I don't have "USAF Study 85" - I was referring to GregPs sources i.e. Ray Wagner and I guess "Naval Aviation Combat Statistics".
I have just gone by verified claims, which come ultimately from the pilots log books and the unit (squadron and fighter group) records. That is where the Air Force gets them too I'm pretty sure.
The USAF Study 85 body of work included both major sources (8th AF and 9th AF Victory Credits Board) and a multitude of drill downs to operational mission summaries as well a details from unit histories. Of all, the ETO data is the most accurate Victory Credit process to establish Destruction vs Probable vs Damaged vs No Award based on combat film or Witness. Other theatres that did not establish a Victory Credits Board but required Witness/Combat film were more lenient as the Encounte Report Claim with witness was rarely overturned.
The 8th/9th VCB are also the source for ground destruction in ETO, as well as type a/c destroyed. The source for all are the enconter Reports matched to Victory Credit Board award and issued Reports to the units and pilots.
So, in your terminology, Victory Credit vs actual proof of aircraft destroyed is the bridge you wish to cross. Good luck with that. There will never be an intersection of Credit to proof of destruction, even when destruction (Out of control fireball crashing into sea or lake for example) is beyond contest.
With all due respect, you seem to be confusing a couple of issues here. And I think you misunderstood some of what I wrote earlier which is probably my fault.
When I say "Claim" or "Confirmed Claim" or "Victory Credit", I mean that the armed forces hierarchy for the US or whichever nation "confirmed" a shoot down, whether by gun camera or corroborating witnesses or whatever,
during the war. As a "destroyed" not as a "probable" or a "damaged" credit. That is what I call a claim. Claims are always overclaimed in aggregate, no matter what methods of verification were used. Sometimes just a little, 10 or 20%, sometimes by a lot 300-500% or more.
With the Soviets and some others there is a secondary issue of "shared credits" which complicates matters somewhat.
During WW2 (and other wars) there were periods and Theaters where victory claim process was more or less accurate (for a variety of reasons, often honest mistakes - multiple aircraft shooting at the same opponent and not realizing it, enemy aircraft recovering from what seemed like certain doom, enemy aircraft faking damage or appearing to be crippled such as due to emitting thick black smoke, etc.), but very generally speaking, across the whole war, they were usually around 2-3 times the actual number of victories.
All the numbers I posted links to are just lists of "Destroyed Claims" - "Victory Credits" as approved by the command structure of USAAF, USMC, or USN.
All I was saying is that my numbers for "Victory Credits" didn't match Gregs.
Postwar analysis, while also interesting, is not relevant to me for this purpose because it has not been done for all sides with similar criteria, and I think if we do go to the trouble of a postwar analysis, it's much more interesting to look at "Cross Verified" victories, though that is not possible just yet as we don't have all the data easily available.
A "Cross-Verified" victory, which refers to a comparison of the victory claims by both sides with the actual losses on both sides, takes it to another level but is not quite in reach yet. This process has been started however and the results, on a day for day basis, are available in some of the works of guys like Christer Bergström, Christopher Shores, Michael Clarinbould et al which I already alluded to up-thread.
Seeing that in an engagement, one side claimed ten enemy aircraft but the enemy only really lost three is quite helpful to understanding the reality and getting a clearer picture of the war. But there is still another problem. You have to define what qualifies as a 'loss'. If an aircraft takes one bullet to the radiator and force lands near the battlefield, but it repaired the next morning and flown back to base, is that a loss? If an aircraft takes 1000 bullets and struggles back to base, manages to land on the airfield but is immediately written off and scrapped for parts, is that a loss? Is 60% damaged a loss? 80%?
This can be very tricky. IMO, ultimately it doesn't matter that much so long as you use the same criteria for all sides. When I have made such comparisons I followed the rule that any time an aircraft was forced out of the sky, unable to make it back to base, it was a 'loss' (and therefore a 'victory' for the other side). If it landed on it's own airfield, it was 'damaged'.
For me, you can't go by the ultimate fate of the aircraft because it's too random and variable. A lightly damaged aircraft might still be sitting on the field waiting for a repair when the field is overrun by the enemy ground forces. From the perspective of the fighter pilot or defensive aircraft gunner, they are trying to make the enemy plane go down, no longer able to carry out it's mission. Except in obvious cases like if the aircraft explodes or they see it smash into the ground, they can't possibly know what happened internally, whether the crew was wounded or the engine destroyed. If the pilot bails out or it force lands or crashes or disappears, for me it's a loss.
But anyway like I said, it just has to be done in a manner that whatever the criteria are, they are consistent. That way you can compare like with like.
And I think we are still 5-10 years away from even really starting that process. This data is still being compiled. I personally don't have any totals of cross-verified victories available except in specific engagements or relatively short periods, like one month in a particular Theater or battle area.