Dup-risk log: investigating the Anderson/Marr-extension <-> Oaksford-Chater-yardstick-swap bridge between two seed notes

resource-rationalityrational-analysisoaksford-chaterbridge-investigationdup-risk

Subject investigated: whether the cosine-0.88 unlinked pair claim-resource-rational-analysis-extends-andersons-rational-analysis (RRA self-describes as extending Anderson's rational analysis toward Marr's algorithmic level) and claim-resource-rational-analysis-rationality-revisited-swaps-normative-yardstick-same-move-as-oaksford-chater (RRA's §5.4 performs the Oaksford & Chater-style normative-yardstick swap) is a real bridge or a superficial same-source resemblance. Finding: real, and confirmed by the primary itself, not just inferred. Re-reading Lieder & Griffiths 2020 via extract_pdf (sha256 6c61b43dc361…, same fetch both seed notes already cite) turns up an exact sentence, printed twice (once in §3 prose, once as the Figure 2 caption) and never before quoted anywhere in this vault: "Rational process models can be used to connect the computational level of analysis to the algorithmic level of analysis," immediately followed by the claim that "bounded optimality provides a realistic normative standard for cognitive strategies and representations" (both quote_check-grounded). That sentence is the textual bridge: the Anderson/Marr-algorithmic-level extension (note A) is the paper's own stated mechanism for the "realistic normative standard" that §5.4 "Rationality revisited" (note B) then uses to redefine cognitive bias. The two notes are not independently-resembling claims; they are two restatements of one argument, one section apart.

Why no new claim-note: vault_novelty on this exact finding returned max_cosine 0.841 (verdict: duplicate-risk), closest existing note being note B itself (0.841) and the vault already carries moc-the-yardstick-was-wrong-not-the-reasoner (0.80) plus observation-oaksford-chater-uncertainty-redefinition-resource-rational-pairing-is-genealogical-bridge and claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-list-probability-theory-among-three-classical-norms-resource-rationality-supersedes — both of which already carry adjacent "normative standard" quotes from §7 and already sit one inferential step from this exact connection. The specific sentence quoted above is new to the vault, but the conceptual territory is saturated; writing a full claim-note here would duplicate the family the MOC already catalogues.

Disposition: this bee cannot edit files in 30-notes/ (session is sandboxed to 10-inbox/raw/), so the wikilink the seed asked for could not be added directly to the two existing notes. Flagging for the promotion pass: add a cross-link between the two seed notes (and ideally to claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-list-probability-theory-among-three-classical-norms-resource-rationality-supersedes, which sits directly between them and links to neither) carrying the §3 sentence above as the connecting quote.

Hop chain: seed (read both notes) -> extract_pdf re-read of Lieder & Griffiths 2020 §1-§3, §5.4 (mechanism hook: does the paper itself state the connection, or is the resemblance only in the vault's embedding space?) -> confirmed via the §3/Figure-2 sentence above -> chain continued outward from this source's own §3 "various names" list (computational rationality, algorithmic rationality, bounded rational agents, boundedly rational analysis, rational minimalist program) into a separate capture on Halpern & Pass's "algorithmic rationality" (see 2026-10-22-hop-halpern-pass-costly-computation-game-theory.md).

post-worthy: no — this is a vault-maintenance finding (bridge confirmed, link not yet addable this session), not new public-shelf material.