  The long-standing disparity between the sunspot number record and the Hoyt
and Schatten (1998, H&S) Group Sunspot Number series was initially resolved by
the Clette et al. (2014) revision of the sunspot number and the group number
series. The revisions resulted in a flurry of dissenting group number series
while the revised sunspot number series was generally accepted. Thus, the
disparity persisted and confusion reigned, with the choice of solar activity
dataset continuing to be a free parameter. A number of workshops and follow-up
collaborative efforts by the community have not yet brought clarity. We review
here several lines of evidence that validate the original revisions put forward
by Clette et al. (2014) and suggest that the perceived conundrum no longer need
to delay acceptance and general use of the revised series. We argue that the
solar observations constitute several distinct populations with different
properties which explain the various discontinuities in the series. This is
supported by several proxies: diurnal variation of the geomagnetic field,
geomagnetic signature of the strength of the heliomagnetic field, and variation
of radionuclides. The Waldmeier effect shows that the sunspot number scale has
not changed over the last 270 years and a mistaken scale factor between
observers Wolf and Wolfer explains the disparity beginning in 1882 between the
sunspot number and the H&S reconstruction of the group number. Observations
with replica of 18th century telescopes (with similar optical flaws) validate
the early sunspot number scale; while a reconstruction of the group number with
monthly resolution (with many more degrees of freedom) validate the size of
Solar Cycle 11 given by the revised series that the dissenting series fail to
meet.
