The problem as I see it with the Venona debate as it's occurring today seems to me there are people who are saying, "This is all accurate." Or there are people who are saying, "None of this is accurate. This is all disinformation. We can't trust any of it." There appear to me to be relatively few people who are dealing with the rather obvious possibility that there is some accurate information here and there's some inaccurate information here. 
        To follow that up, while there are people using this material in general, I'm unaware of any studies in which particular documents are being looked at and determined as to whether they contain accurate or inaccurate information. I'm very concerned about a document supposedly decrypted in 1948** that describes someone named Ruth Greenglass, living on Stanton Street, as Liberal's brother-in-law's wife. [See this Venona cable.] 
        I look at that and say, "Wait a second. Why did they need to put all that information in there?" It seems more like a blueprint for the FBI than it seems like something that the KGB needs to know. And when I look at that, I say, "Is it possible that some of that material got injected into this?" Well, nobody is doing an analysis on that level that I'm aware of, and I think it's about time that it was done.

** NCRRC Note: if this cable were truly decrypted in 1948, why was there no surveillance of Julius Rosenberg until after David Greenglass' interview with the FBI in June of 1950?