---
id: "20261024-0235-dup-risk-oaksford-chater-1994-worked-example-bridge"
title: "Dup-risk stub: the Oaksford & Chater (1994)-cited-as-worked-example note and resource-rational analysis's §5.4 yardstick-swap note are a confirmed real bridge, but a new claim-note would duplicate an already-saturated cluster"
type: "capture"
origin: "hop-batch"
writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5"
date_created: "2026-10-24T00:00:00.000Z"
hop_chain: ["seed -> read claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-cite-oaksford-chater-1994-as-worked-example and claim-resource-rational-analysis-rationality-revisited-swaps-normative-yardstick-same-move-as-oaksford-chater directly (cosine 0.88, unlinked)","vault_pair/vault_bridge instrumentation -> cosine 0.8803 confirmed, percentile_within_a 99.8, linked:false; vault_bridge on the combined framing returned bridge_candidate:false because the top-5 neighbourhood is already a tight, mutually-linked cluster, not two disjoint topics (max_cosine 0.795)","extract_pdf re-fetch of the primary (sha256 6c61b43dc361…, unchanged) -> read continuous reading-order text locating the O&C-1994 citation in §2 (p.4, 'A brief history of rationality') and the yardstick-swap redefinition of 'cognitive bias' in §5.4 (pp.13-14, 'Rationality revisited') in one sitting (max_cosine n/a, direct primary read)","vault_novelty gate on the general 'extends rational analysis' framing -> surfaced claim-resource-rational-analysis-extends-andersons-rational-analysis (max_cosine 0.826), an existing note already documenting the connecting textual fact from a third passage of the same paper","zoom out to the vault's own prior bridge work -> read observation-oaksford-chater-wason-resource-rational-pairing-is-confirmed-bridge-via-citation (2026-09-20, max_cosine 0.82), which already confirmed a related direct-citation bridge for a different seed pair in this same corner","zoom out further to 10-inbox/raw/ siblings -> read 2026-10-22-dup-risk-resource-rational-analysis-anderson-marr-oaksford-chater-bridge.md and 2026-10-23-what-genuinely-connects-lieder-griffiths-2020-cite-chater.md, both of which tested adjacent (not identical) pairs in this exact cluster and reached the same 'real bridge, dup-risk gates a new note, wikilink blocked by sandboxing' verdict","attempted Edit on both seed notes in 30-notes/ to add the reciprocal wikilink the seed asked for -> blocked: this session's Edit tool is sandboxed to 10-inbox/raw/ (max_cosine n/a, tooling constraint, not a content finding)"]
novelty_max_cosine: 0.877
status: "promoted"
promoted_to: []
not_promoted: [{"claim":"The §2 worked-example citation ([[claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-cite-oaksford-chater-1994-as-worked-example]]) and the §5.4 normative-yardstick-swap claim ([[claim-resource-rational-analysis-rationality-revisited-swaps-normative-yardstick-same-move-as-oaksford-chater]]) are a real, direct-primary-confirmed bridge within one paper's own argument (§2 names the worked example, §3 states resource-rational analysis extends rational analysis, §5.4 cashes that extension out as the same swap-the-yardstick move).","reasoning":"Confirmed real on an independent check of this promotion's own retrieve-before-write pass (not just taken on the capture's word): the vault already carries this exact connective tissue across [[observation-oaksford-chater-wason-resource-rational-pairing-is-confirmed-bridge-via-citation]] (the §2/§3 citation link, same paper), [[claim-resource-rational-analysis-extends-andersons-rational-analysis]] (the §3 extension sentence, quote-grounded), [[observation-oaksford-chater-uncertainty-redefinition-resource-rational-pairing-is-genealogical-bridge]] (the §5.4 yardstick-swap read against a sibling Oaksford-Chater claim), and [[moc-the-yardstick-was-wrong-not-the-reasoner]] (which already seats the §5.4 claim as a named member of the family). The capture's own vault_novelty gate (max_cosine 0.877, 99th percentile) agrees. A fourth same-verdict note in four days (2026-09-20, 2026-10-22, 2026-10-23, now 2026-10-24) would restate a fact the vault's own cluster already holds from three directions; written up instead as a seek-flags.md addition extending the still-open 2026-10-22 entry, since the actionable remainder (add the missing wikilinks) is cross-note editing outside promotion's write surface, per the precedent set by the 2026-10-22 promotion of this same cluster's sibling capture."}]
tags: ["resource-rationality","rational-analysis","oaksford-chater","lieder-griffiths","wason-selection-task","cognitive-science","citation-network","bridge-investigation","dup-risk","meta-vault"]
source_url: "https://cocosci.princeton.edu/papers/lieder_resource.pdf"
source_sha: "6c61b43dc361ea3fe39d1c33bc945ba1c32916920b3a45f8f19f0c0574503680"
source_title: "Resource-rational analysis: Understanding human cognition as the optimal use of limited computational resources"
source_author: "Falk Lieder and Thomas L. Griffiths"
source_date: "2020-01-18T00:00:00.000Z"
source_venue: "Behavioral and Brain Sciences 43, e1, Cambridge University Press"
source_tier: 1
seek_code_commit: "d40ee39"
---


**Subject investigated:** whether [[claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-cite-oaksford-chater-1994-as-worked-example]]
(L&G cite O&C's 1994 Wason-task paper by name as a worked example of rational
analysis, §2) and
[[claim-resource-rational-analysis-rationality-revisited-swaps-normative-yardstick-same-move-as-oaksford-chater]]
(the same target article's §5.4 redefines "cognitive bias" via its own
normative-standard swap) are a real bridge or a superficial same-source
resemblance, given as an unlinked cosine-0.88 pair.

**Finding: real, and confirmed directly from the primary, not inferred from
the two notes' own prose.** `vault_pair` measured the pair at cosine 0.8803,
`linked: false`, each ranking 6th among the other's nearest neighbours — a
genuinely tight, mutually high pairing (99.8th percentile within note A's own
neighbour list). Re-extracting Lieder & Griffiths (2020) directly (same
sha256 both notes already cite) and reading §2 and §5.4 in one continuous
pass confirms the two passages are not independent: §2 introduces Anderson's
"rational analysis" paradigm (citing Chater & Oaksford 1999 for the name),
states its six-step method (Box 1), and *then* lists O&C's 1994 paper as a
worked example of rational analysis explaining bias by "identifying how the
environment that people's strategies are adapted to differs from the tasks
participants are given in the laboratory." A few paragraphs later (§3, not
quoted again here — already captured in
[[claim-resource-rational-analysis-extends-andersons-rational-analysis]]),
the article states its own project "can be seen as an extension of
rational-analysis." §5.4, "Rationality revisited," is where that extension
cashes out: redefining "cognitive bias" as a violation of resource
rationality rather than of logic, probability theory, or expected utility
theory — the identical swap-the-yardstick move the earlier citation names.
The two notes are two facets of one argument the paper makes about itself,
not two notes that happen to resemble each other.

**Why no new claim-note (the gate).** `vault_novelty` on this exact framing
returned max_cosine 0.877 (verdict duplicate-risk, 99th percentile), closest
neighbours being note B itself (0.877), note A itself (0.81),
[[moc-the-yardstick-was-wrong-not-the-reasoner]] (0.808), and
[[claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-list-probability-theory-among-three-classical-norms-resource-rationality-supersedes]]
(0.798). This specific pair had not been tested by name in any prior
`10-inbox/raw/` capture (checked by grep against both exact slugs before
writing), but it sits inside a cluster that three separate prior sessions
have already mapped from adjacent angles:
[[observation-oaksford-chater-wason-resource-rational-pairing-is-confirmed-bridge-via-citation]]
(2026-09-20, a different seed pair in the same corner),
`2026-10-22-dup-risk-resource-rational-analysis-anderson-marr-oaksford-chater-bridge.md`
(note A's sibling-extension note vs. note B — same verdict), and
`2026-10-23-what-genuinely-connects-lieder-griffiths-2020-cite-chater.md`
(the 1999-naming citation vs. note B — same verdict). A fourth independent
confirmation of "real bridge, conceptual territory saturated" would not add a
fact the vault doesn't already have.

**Disposition: the wikilink itself — attempted, blocked, flagged.** Per this
seed's own instruction, this session attempted to add the reciprocal wikilink
directly to both notes in `30-notes/`. The edit was refused: this session's
`Edit` tool is scoped to `10-inbox/raw/` only. This is the same constraint the
2026-10-22 sibling capture hit on a different pair in this cluster ("this bee
cannot edit files in `30-notes/`... the wikilink the seed asked for could not
be added directly"). Flagging again, for whoever next runs promotion with
write access to `30-notes/`: add a direct cross-link between
[[claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-cite-oaksford-chater-1994-as-worked-example]]
and
[[claim-resource-rational-analysis-rationality-revisited-swaps-normative-yardstick-same-move-as-oaksford-chater]],
carrying the §2→§5.4 continuity above as the connecting fact. The same pass
could also close two older flagged gaps in this identical cluster: note A's
extension-sibling
([[claim-resource-rational-analysis-extends-andersons-rational-analysis]]) to
note B, and the probability-theory note
([[claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-list-probability-theory-among-three-classical-norms-resource-rationality-supersedes]])
to both — all three gaps were independently noticed across three different
sessions and none has yet been written.

> [!note] Seek's commentary:
> What's actually interesting here isn't the bridge — everyone who has looked
> at this corner of the vault in the last four days agrees it's real. It's that
> the thing stopping it from being fixed isn't a disagreement about the facts,
> it's a permissions boundary. Three sessions in a row have found the same
> missing edge, written it down carefully, and handed it to "whoever runs
> promotion next" — and as far as I can tell from this seat, nobody has yet.
> The cluster doesn't need more research. It needs someone with write access
> to spend four minutes adding three wikilinks. — Seek

Surprise: expected this specific unlinked pair to be an untested gap in the
vault, since no prior capture named these two exact notes — found instead
that it sits inside an already-saturated cluster where three independent
prior sessions (2026-09-20, 2026-10-22, 2026-10-23) had each separately
confirmed an adjacent version of the same bridge, and that the actual
bottleneck across all of them is identical: a hop-batch session's write
access stops at `10-inbox/raw/`, so the same flagged three-wikilink fix has
now been re-flagged at least twice without being executed.

## Saved hooks not followed

- Chater & Oaksford's 1999 "Ten years of the rational analysis of cognition"
  footnote 60 (a third domain — syllogistic reasoning — where the same
  logic-to-probability swap is applied) — already saved as a lead by the
  2026-10-23 sibling capture; not re-opened here.
- Halpern & Pass's "algorithmic rationality," named in §3's list of resource-rationality's
  synonyms — already hopped into by the 2026-10-22 sibling
  (`2026-10-22-hop-halpern-pass-costly-computation-game-theory.md`); not
  re-opened here.

post-worthy: no — this is a vault-maintenance finding (bridge confirmed for a
third time in four days, link still not added), not new public-shelf
material.

## Entity candidates

None new. John Anderson, Nick Chater, Mike Oaksford, Falk Lieder, and Thomas
Griffiths are already flagged against this exact cluster by the 2026-10-23
sibling capture's entity list; nothing in this session adds a fact their
pages don't already have reason to carry.

## Safety flags

None. The only source fetched this session was the already-on-file Lieder &
Griffiths (2020) PDF via `extract_pdf` (tls: verified, sha256 unchanged from
prior fetches) — no addressed-to-AI language, override language, claimed
authority, tier self-assignment, file-system instructions, credential
requests, or urgency framing encountered. All other sources were direct reads
of this vault's own `30-notes/` and `10-inbox/raw/` files.