Bet, I am sorry you feel that way. But the element of uncertainty due to the occasional incorrect dog on a pedigree, especially from many, many years ago before better records were kept, would be statistically far too miniscule to make any real difference to the EBVs or the work that resulted in the MVD protocol or the role of inheritance in CM and SM. It is fairly easy these days to correct many inaccuracies too because so many people are aware of littermates and relations on pedigrees, especially for the key dogs that are most relevant to the genome work now.
Sarah Blott also does not need further MRIs to prepare her EBVs -- as the newsletter noted earlier this year, she has actually completed EBVs for every single pedigreed cavalier alive right now in the UK. The job of making those ever more accurate will depend on adding more information via MRi, but primarily by adding the results of the Canadian genome project, which will link true genetic inheritance values to the breeding values for a given dog or line. Again, the occasional incorrect dog on past pedigrees is not going to alter those EBVs.
Using cheek swabs, blood donations or whatever to link a dog and pedigree to a DNA profile is a standard that will likely come in for all dogs (I already own a dog that is DNA profiled by the breeder ). Already many good breeders do this s best practice, to guarantee that a given dog does have the parentage claimed on the pedigree. The IKC is talking about making this mandatory for all registered dogs. But this works both ways -- A DNA test can also verify that dogs could NOT be the ones noted on the pedigree. This is why it is also unlikely that a given dog and pedigree would be totally or significantly incorrect for research as the profile would be wrong for the dog.
So there really is no issue of damaging Sarah's current funded work project even if no one submits another MRI right now, you can stop worrying about that. Also occasional inaccuracies on pedigrees will neiher have affected the accuracy of research work on MVD that led to the MVD protocol, nor to the initial genetic and DNA work that has already indicated -- as Sarah herself has noted -- that probably 70-80% of the likelihood a dog will develop SM is linked to inheritance. She will tell you this herself I am sure. However, the long term value of her EBVs once she has completed this work would depend on some people continuing to scan so that real scientific data from the scans can be added to the predictions of inheritance. There are good indications that many people will scan as many breeders have indicated an intention to obtain this data on their breeding dogs. Given the close relatedness between all cavaliers, much useful data will come from even small MRI samples.
So your work before was not in vain in terms of the results. Sadly though it may well be seen to have been in vain if breeders do not actually use the MVD protocol that resulted! As the UK CKCS Club's own cardiologist Simon Swift has said several times -- including in Pedigree Dogs Exposed -- heart statistics within the UK club have not improved AT ALL in the years the club has recommended -- rather than required -- using the MVD protocol, and that this is due solely to breeders not following the protocol (stated in his open letter to the club that was posted the the UK CKCS club site for several weeks last year. in which he asked whether the club was truly serious about improving heart statistics in the breed and if so, was it not now time to REQUIRE cardiologist heart testing only, and the use of the protocol?).
PS It is worth noting that all the pedigree information is what is in the records of the UK club, so if it were to be significantly incorrect, that would be a problem they would need to work to resolve. Nonetheless the inheritance values would not have been significantly affected over such a huge sample of pedigrees (15,000), tied to some 1500 MRIs I believe at this point, and many blood/cheek DNA samples that were donated as well.