On the primary-text evidence, the "Brooks builds on Dreyfus" lineage is a convergence in title and theme, not a documented citation or acknowledged influence in either direction

Taken together, the two primary texts show no direct textual dialogue. Brooks's 1991 "Intelligence without representation" never names Dreyfus (claim-brooks-1991-does-not-cite-dreyfus) and explicitly attributes its approach to engineering rather than philosophy, including a named disclaimer of Heideggerian inspiration in §7.5 (claim-brooks-1991-disclaims-heideggerian-inspiration) — Heidegger being the philosopher on whom Dreyfus's critique is built (claim-dreyfus-critique-targeted-symbolic-ai-not-neural-nets). Dreyfus's own same-titled 2002 paper, published eleven years later, never names Brooks or robotics (claim-dreyfus-2002-iwr-does-not-mention-brooks).

The resemblance that secondary literature treats as a lineage — the shared title and the shared anti-representation conclusion — is therefore, on the evidence of either author's own text, a convergence in framing and topic, not a documented citation relationship or an acknowledged influence. This directly resolves the vault's open question (question-brooks-1991-dreyfus-anti-representation-lineage): the answer to "how explicitly does Brooks build on Dreyfus" is "not explicitly at all," in either direction, at the level of the primary texts.

The "lineage" lives in the reception of the two papers — how later commentators read them side by side — not in their composition. That is a legitimate intellectual-history observation, but a different claim than "Brooks built on Dreyfus," and the two should be kept apart. Whether the secondary literature (e.g. Jordanous 2020) documents any acknowledged link, or is itself just drawing this same side-by-side parallel, is routed at question-brooks-dreyfus-secondary-literature-reception-lineage.