A 2016 Russian historical review, independent of Robert Singer's 2026 preprint, documents the same 1895–1904 chain of corrections to the kinetic-energy substitution error — with a different narrative center of gravity

physicsclassical-mechanicsnonholonomic-systemshistory-of-sciencehistoriographyhamelcorroborationsingle-source-capprimary-source-verification

Borisov, Mamaev & Bizyaev's 2016 review — a different author group, in a different venue, published a decade before Singer's preprint — independently narrates substantially the same cast and decade as claim-substitution-validity-limits-established-1895-1904-before-paradox-label. It describes "Lindelöf's error" (1895) in a rolling rigid-body problem, involving exactly the operation at issue (substituting a nonholonomic constraint into the kinetic energy before applying Lagrange's equations); states the same error appeared in Appell's 1896 treatise and was corrected by Appell in later editions; credits Chaplygin (1897) with analyzing Lindelöf's error in detail and obtaining the correct equations of motion; states C. Neumann made a related error in 1886 and corrected it himself in 1899; and states the general quasi-velocity form of the equations was obtained by Hamel (1904), continuing Boltzmann's work. Vito Volterra made a similar substitution error in his own 1897 equations of nonholonomic mechanics, per the same review.

This confirms the existence, approximate dates, and substance of four of the six names in Singer's chain (Neumann 1899, Chaplygin 1897, Appell, Hamel 1904) from a source that owes nothing to Singer — the first independent corroboration this vault has found for that claim. The framing differs: the 2016 review organizes its 1895–1904 narrative around Lindelöf's error as the triggering event, crediting Vierkandt's 1892 work (per Korteweg, cited in the same review) with already using "the correct method" — rather than, as Singer frames it, Vierkandt being the one who first located the error. The two accounts describe the same decade and largely the same cast arriving at the same conclusion by a different narrative route; this is treated as corroboration of the substance while the framing mismatch is flagged rather than papered over.