This article analyzes this problem theoretically, looks at existing methods, and proposes a couple (AFAIK) novel ideas. One new idea is complementary identification: you destructively identify all but one chromosome, and infer the remaining one.

New article: "Chromosome identification methods"

If we have a chromosome, how do we know what number it is? There are lots of ways scientists do this, but AFAIK, none of them are well-refined, non-destructive, and confidently informative.

New essay: "Genomic emancipation"

What's the vision motivating reprogenetic technology? My simple answer is genomic emancipation:

Empowering parents to make genomic choices on behalf of their future children.

I'll read out the main part of the essay on Sunday, +Q&A.
Links⬇️

From a technical standpoint, how do we get to strong human germline engineering? Since this field is full of unsolved problems and open questions, the answer is uncertain and complicated. We've just published a visual roadmap, as a zoomed-out guide.
berkeleygenomics.org/articles/Vis...

Sometimes UPD results in developmental disorders such as Prader–Willi syndrome; sometimes UPD has little or no apparent effect.

And like 1A, Genomic Liberty needs more narrow, stronger tentpole principles to fortify it. Some tentpoles we recognize:
* Non-intervention liberty
* Propagative liberty
* Typicalization liberty
* Beneficent liberty
* Altruistic liberty

Just as the First Amendment has exceptions, some genomic choices are regulatable under Genomic Liberty, if:
* clearly very unsafe
* impinging on human nature
* extreme negative externalities
* nonconsensual DNA use
* non compos mentis parents
* preventing child's testimony

Now, like any legal principle, Genomic Liberty is not simple or absolute. Consider the First Amendment. It protects freedom of thought; but it does so through several different protections, and it contends with many exceptions.