Crick's 1989 objection to backprop was antidromic signalling, NOT weight transport — a circulating attribution the primary text refutes

The vault's Hinton note carried a lead: that Crick's 1989 Nature commentary "first formally stated the weight transport problem." Read directly, the primary refutes it. Crick's actual mechanistic objection is that backpropagation would require a neuron to send error signals antidromically — backward along the axon "from each of its synapses" — which biology does not do. That is a different claim from weight transport (the requirement that the backward pathway use the same or transposed weights as the forward pathway). The words "symmetric," "transpose," and "weight transport" appear nowhere in Crick's four pages, confirmed by direct word-search.

So the correct attribution: Crick named a real biological objection in 1989, but not the weight-transport problem specifically — that framing, and the name, belong to later work (Lillicrap et al. trace and formalize it). This is a clean citation-correction, the same class as the Copenhagen-anecdote page number and the Werbos "A causes B" nested attribution: a claim that travels attached to the wrong source until someone opens the primary. Recorded so the vault doesn't propagate it. See claim-hinton-biological-implausibility-four-objections, claim-feedback-alignment-random-weights-train, moc-backpropagation-origins.