Retain the structural provenance lesson; date every named relationship and do not treat the authors' guessed brand tree as audited fact.
The passage combines named 2013 cases with an explicit admission that parts of the authors' family-tree model are estimates.
The authors show that a brand name, bottler wording, age, proof, and heritage narrative can leave the production facility, shared mash bill, sourced liquid, and post-source differentiation unclear.
PDF sheets 112–116 (displayed pp. 74–76)
Chapter 3 — Kentucky whiskey and brand architecture
Verified against complete extracted text and rendered PDF sheets 112–116.
Evidence unit
The authors show that brand names, bottler wording, age, proof, and heritage narratives can leave the production facility, shared mash bill, sourced liquid, and post-source differentiation unclear. They also disclose that parts of their own American-whiskey family tree are estimates.
Locator
Chapter 3, PDF sheets 112–116, displayed pages 74–76.
Research use
Supports separate database entities for brand owner, brand, distiller, production facility, source liquid, aging, finishing, and finished expression.
Reliability boundary
Date every named 2013 relationship. Do not treat the authors’ guessed family tree as audited evidence or equate sourcing with deception.