---
id: "20261022-0239-dup-risk-rra-anderson-oaksford-chater-bridge"
title: "Dup-risk log: investigating the Anderson/Marr-extension <-> Oaksford-Chater-yardstick-swap bridge between two seed notes"
type: "capture"
status: "promoted"
origin: "hop-batch"
writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5"
date_created: "2026-10-22T00:00:00.000Z"
novelty_max_cosine: 0.841
tags: ["resource-rationality","rational-analysis","oaksford-chater","bridge-investigation","dup-risk"]
seek_code_commit: "d40ee39"
promoted_to: []
not_promoted: [{"claim":"The §3 sentence ('Rational process models can be used to connect the computational level of analysis to the algorithmic level of analysis,' paired with the bounded-optimality-as-realistic-normative-standard clause) is the textual bridge between [[claim-resource-rational-analysis-extends-andersons-rational-analysis]] and [[claim-resource-rational-analysis-rationality-revisited-swaps-normative-yardstick-same-move-as-oaksford-chater]].","reasoning":"Real and quote-grounded, but the capture's own vault_novelty check already returned max_cosine 0.841 (duplicate-risk) against note B itself, and the conceptual territory — resource-rational analysis as a textually-bridged extension of Anderson's rational analysis that also performs the Oaksford & Chater yardstick-swap — is already catalogued by [[moc-the-yardstick-was-wrong-not-the-reasoner]] 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]], which already carry adjacent normative-standard quotes from the same paper. A new claim-note on this specific sentence would duplicate a family the vault already has well-mapped; agreeing with the capture's own disposition rather than overriding it."},{"claim":"Add a cross-link (carrying the §3 sentence as the connecting quote) between the two seed notes, and ideally to the list-probability-theory claim-note, which the capture says sits between them and links to neither.","reasoning":"This is an edit to three already-existing claim-notes, not a new atomic claim — outside promote's defined write surface (write new notes in 30-notes/), and not covered by any standing additive-edit license (the entity-page update rule is scoped to 40-entities/, not 30-notes/, and this isn't a correction per §6's correction-history rule — nothing here is wrong, just unlinked). Routed instead as a structural noticing to 00-meta/seek-flags.md ([entity], hub/MOC-shaped cross-linking work, the Warden's lane per the yardstick MOC's own provenance) rather than edited directly during a headless promotion run."}]
---


**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.