Chater & Oaksford (1999) list integration with Marr's computational level as an unresolved 'outstanding question' for rational analysis, eight years after Anderson made the equation

rational-analysismarr-levelsandersonchater-oaksfordcognitive-sciencehistory-of-psychologyprimary-source

Nick Chater and Mike Oaksford's own ten-year retrospective on the rational-analysis program — written by two of its leading practitioners, and thanking John Anderson himself in the acknowledgements for discussion — names as an explicit "outstanding question" for the field: "How far can rational analysis in cognitive science be integrated with related work in perception and motor control, such as Marr's 'computational level' of explanation, 'ideal-observer' models, and 'task dynamics'?" Earlier in the same piece they describe Marr's computational-level analysis of vision as a parallel, analogous purposive explanation, not as a program already merged with Anderson's rational analysis.

This sits against Anderson's own 1991 equation of rational analysis with Marr's computational level: Anderson made the terminological move himself, by name, citing Vision directly — but close successors working inside his own tradition were still treating the Marr-level fit as an open research question eight years later, in 1999. The "his own claim, or a later reading" framing does not fully capture this: it is Anderson's own claim, and his own successors did not yet treat it as settled.