I'll just get this one thing out of the way: the Saga Charts haven't been updated since December and no one is updating them and they are not accurate anymore. (I worked on the Saga team as a pedigree vetter.) The current community chart of reference is the forum-based one here
The KittyCats Proofs charts which I tend to abbreviate to "KittyProofs". Those charts are based on the proofs which are provided here publicly in the Breeding section of the forum.
Certainly not everything that is posted here in the breeding section is a proof. There's lots of "look what I got" and "congrats" and "oh I think it's this" and "I'm testing this with this next" and occasionally there's a thread on how to breed. But the functional bones of this section is the proofs.
One of the things about proofs is none of the requirements are personal; they are strictly objective. It's not about anybody's word. It's about providing a reference that everybody can see right there and stands on it's own self-evident merits. You say you're satisfied that the mom is pure caramel. Okay, that is what it is - I completely believe you when you say that you didn't have the other recessive furs etc. As a point of comparison, I am personally satisfied that bubblegum is dominant to tonk blue mink, because I pulled it with a cat derived from a line that I believe to be pure. But I haven't posted that because I *Don't Have a Proof*. I'm working on a proof and - cats cooperating - I'll have one next week. I personally suspect that the tiger furs are going to end up dominant in the charts, and so yes, the turquoise is likely to be dominant to caramel toyger. This has to do with hunches, and buzz in the chat groups about who pulled the furs with what. But basically it's early days for the tigers yet and people don't have formal proofs mustered.
In your posts you both say you aren't giving a proof but then also say that yes the line is pure. And, like I said, people post things in Breeding that are "suggestive", not all proofs. My concern here is that the larger community is watching and it's really crucial to understanding pedigrees and the mechanisms of breeding that everybody account for the hiddens in cats and that a "Solid" pedigree showing caramels is not EVER a proof of pure caramel unless the dates on the cats go back to the point at which caramel was the most recessive fur on the grid - at which point they Must have been pure, because a "most-recessive" is always pure as there is no trait that can hide underneath it. Now yes, indeed that's really WAY too onerous for people to post... much too much effort generally speaking. Which is why we usually don't take that approach, we just take the time and pull the hidden with a more recessive fur.
In this case of turquoise tiger!, I do suspect we're going to see proofs come in with more dominant furs pulling.
Thank you for posting. We need more people interested in doing dominance testing and taking the time to post. It really is helpful for everybody who breeds.
