Right, but the issues with using geneology-resolution DNA to match a specific individual are already understood---you yourself have highlighted them.

A defendant is one expert witness away from undermining a case that relies on that low of a resolution of matching alone. In this case, that data was only used as a pointer to suggest to police that deeper scrutiny of the identified suspect was warranted.

> A defendant is one expert witness away from undermining a case that relies on that low of a resolution of matching alone.

and an uninformed 'jury of your peers' away from a false conviction..

If things were that bad now, the relative whose DNA first came up as a a close match would now be in custody and on her way to a conviction.

To see how things were actually done, RTFA.

DNA-based evidence led to a lot of wrong convictions in the early stages but methods have improved significantly. No judge would send someone to jail because a sample at 23andme matches. But they could issue a warrant to allow a further DNA test of the suspect.

There is significant lag between false convictions and proof of innocence. So, it might seem like a huge improvement but it's far smaller difference than you might think.

What is the difference between a DNA test and a DNA test?

Considering it's their job i'd say they no quite a bit.