Okay, here's a nice "nuance-y" question.
It is generally accepted that a birth certificate contains primary information given by the parents at the time of the birth, and a marriage certificate contains primary information given by the bride and groom, so both documents are considered reliable.
But what if the information on the documents is actually a little fuzzier than that?
Example (and let's assume for simplicity that both of these documents definitely refer to the correct people):
1. Subject's birth certificate was NOT CREATED AT THE TIME OF EVENT. It's a delayed birth certificate ordered by his mother from the state government ten years after his birth (once BCs became a matter of course in the state).
2. Subject's marriage certificate is NOT factually correct in many aspects. Both parties gave their correct birth names, dates, and of course the certificate lists the correct marriage date/place. But the bride and groom both DELIBERATELY gave incorrect information regarding their current residence, places of birth, and parents' names (they eloped and were trying to hide from the bride's father, who was a local judge and very well-known; I suppose they thought nobody would tell on them if they didn't give info on who to tell!)
Question: given that the BC's information was given ten years after the birth, and the MC gives incorrect information, how reliable are these documents in terms of proving these two events?