The only two communications tested in the San Francisco Police Department DNA report for cells, from 1974 onwards, were the Exorcist letter and 1978 letter. Therefore, these were the only letters that could reasonably have matched for DNA. Two of the other 1974 communications were not processed for DNA, and the SLA letter wasn't even listed as a "suspected Zodiac correspondence".
It is highly likely that the 1978 letter wasn't ruled out through DNA (just placed on the list and attributed in comments as not an authentic Zodiac letter}. Had it been ruled out through DNA, then it would have been an admission from the San Francisco Police Department that the DNA from the 1978 letter either matched somebody they knew wasn't Zodiac (such as David Toschi), or the DNA originated from a female. If the DNA from David Toschi had matched the 1978 letter, then logically they should have ruled out the Exorcist letter too, according to the findings of Alan Keel. But the San Francisco Police Department didn't attribute the Exorcist letter in comments as not an authentic Zodiac letter, in effect, leaving it under the general heading of Suspected Zodiac Correspondence. Therefore, by reverse logic, we can conclude that if the Exorcist letter is deemed a Suspected Zodiac Correspondence, then we must conclude the 1978 letter is a Suspected Zodiac Correspondence, according to not only the findings of Alan Keel, but the fact that none of the other 1974 letters were tested for DNA (hence why none have any findings in comments in the DNA table). If Alan Keel is correct, then it is impossible to accept the Exorcist letter as genuine Zodiac material without embracing the validity of the 1978 letter also.
If the SFPD had really deemed the 1978 letter not an authentic Zodiac letter through DNA, then barring a female author, they would have to know the identity of the person who licked the 1978 envelope, who they equally knew wasn't Zodiac. If this were the case, then they have been less than forthcoming with that information. But again, it doesn't explain why they haven't declared the Exorcist letter as not authentic if Alan Keel's findings are correct. Everything points to the fact that the 1978 letter was only ruled out through handwriting and placed into the DNA report under this assumption, thereby giving us the impression that the 1978 letter has categorically been ruled out as Zodiac correspondence, which it hasn't.
If we conclude that the Exorcist letter and 1978 letter author are the same person, then researchers and forum members alike, who believe the Exorcist letter is authentic Zodiac correspondence, cannot use handwriting analysis as a reason to challenge the authenticity of the 1978 letter. Every time you argue against the 1978 letter on the basis of handwriting, you would be simultaneously negating the authenticity of the Exorcist letter. According to the findings of Alan Keel, you either embrace both letters as genuine communications, or you consign both to the increasing pile of hoaxed Zodiac correspondence.