I'm sorry

Please forget everything I said yesterday!   I was working with bad data.   I had Robert's (#75) DYS 464a,b,c,d as 15,16,17,17 when it is actually 15,16,16,17.   Carol Vass is a kind and generous person.   She suggests that perhaps FTDNA changed the numbers in the middle of the night after I'd copied them.   Right.      I expect that I simply miscopied them and I apologize.   I don't yet know whether it will make a difference to my conclusion, but let's take a look.

O.K., the Faires markers, including Robert's correct markers are:
And their distance table using the corrected markers is:Not much change.   It still indicates that Paul, #36, and David, #59, are related; that Paul and Dennis, #31, are probably related; that David and Robert are possibly related; that David and Dennis are unrelated (still probably too few markers); and that Dennis and Robert are unrelated, but now says that Paul and Robert are probably related.   Robert's distances calculated by Dean McGee's Y-Utility are now confirmed by FTDNA:Notice that there are others in the Project just as close to Robert but who are not Faires Berrys.

Again, here's their time to Most Recent Common Ancestor table based on a somewhat liberal 55% standard.   In other words, slightly more probable than not:A little closer but Robert still doesn't seem to be within a genealogically significant time frame with any of the others except perhaps Paul.

And the cladogram:Still suffers from lack of markers.

Well, at least the distance 'mystery' seems to have been cleared up.   In response to my question to the list yesterday about the seeming discrepancy in the count, David Wilson explained that "You count one step for each of the two 464 copies that are different and one step for the difference at 389i.   You do NOT count the difference at 389ii because 389ii is a compound value that already incorporates the value for 389i. (That is, in each case 389ii-389i = 16, so there is no change in the second part of the marker.)"   Now, all I have to do is remember that.

So, what do we have?   I think we just have to ignore David because he simply doesn't have enough markers to tell anything from.   So we have Dennis and Paul probably related, and Robert probably related to Paul but unrelated to Dennis.   Too uncertain for me.   Without more markers I'd still have to call Robert unrelated to the Faires Berrys, especially if Dennis is.

Upon further reflection, particularly in view of Robert's results, I may no longer even think that Dennis is shown to belong in the Faires family.