[Juha]

But one must remember that the lack of witness not necessarily meant that a claim could not be accepted, e.g. Tuck’s 2+0+1 Bf 109s on 21 June 1941 was accepted without any witness. IIRC Barkhorn got victories accepted without witness testimonies because he was such a reliable claimer and IIRC it seems that he was worth of that trust. IIRC later that became more common in the LW.

Also those claims counted as accepted by the HQ without witnesses had went through the confirmation process and accepted, some of them were real victories some were not but higher percentace of those were unfounded than of those with witness(es).

The main reason of the change of the FiAF’s system was that the share of unwitnessed claims increased and the HQ was worried on the possibility of the reduced reliability of the claims, which seems to have been justifiable. But that wasn’t the only reason for the change. Especially after the arrival of the first Bf 109s and the establishment of the LLv 34 as the Bf 109 unit led to intensive competition for kills, e.g. hunting I-153s of the VVS KBF over Lavansaari in spite of the heavy Soviet AA over the island. The HQ tried to stop that with orders and making claim acceptance stricter but with a little success. it correctly decided that the results were not worth of the risks to the meagre resources of the FiAF even if e.g. the CO of the LLv 34 (Luukkanen) opposed the actions of the HQ, he thought that the restrictions damped the offensive spirit of his pilots which he saw as an essential ingredient of successful fighter pilots. When nothing else helped, the HQ declared certain areas with powerful Soviet AA as no-go areas for fighters and informed that no claims over those areas would be accepted.

After all that bla-bla here is what was asked (and yes, conf+prob+dam)
Vesa 30 ½ and 1 dam 28 ½+2+1
Alakoski 28 and 3 dam 22+6+3
Järvi (note the dots above the a) 25 ½ and 2 vaur 23 ½+2+3 (but Järvi’s claims are more problematic than those of Alakoski)

Juha