Greenhalgh's 2003 article states, in its own words, that it draws on 'the book in progress' the vault identifies as Just One Child

chinapopulation-policyone-child-policyhistoriographygreenhalghjust-one-childunverified

The opening of Susan Greenhalgh's 2003 Population and Development Review article states: "In this article and the book in progress on which it draws, I look closely at the role of population science in the making of China's one-child-per-couple policy." [[entity-just-one-child-greenhalgh-2008|Just One Child]] (2008) — the vault's standing identification of "the book in progress" — is the same book that, per Olsder's own 2024 account, named both Olsder and Kwakernaak and prompted the 2008 Trouw approach that set off Olsder's retrospective 1975 realization.

This is Greenhalgh's own contemporaneous statement, not an inference drawn by a later reader, that the 2003 article's research — including its Kwakernaak-1977 citation — and the eventual 2008 book share one underlying research project. It does not establish that the specific Kwakernaak citation is the passage that later named Olsder and Kwakernaak: Just One Child itself remains unread by any vault session, so the exact textual path from the 2003 citation to the book's later naming is plausible but unconfirmed. [unverified-mechanism — needs primary], tracked at question-verify-song-jian-1975-twente-delegation-visit, which already names Just One Child as the single source that would most directly settle open questions in this cluster.

Audit addendum (2026-08-26). The 2003 article's own reference list carries a self-citation for the book in progress under a different working title: "Greenhalgh, Susan. In progress. Governing by Numbers: Population Science in the Making of Modern China. University of California Press" (p. 192). The publisher matches Just One Child's eventual publisher (University of California Press, 2008) and the subject matches, so the identification remains plausible — but the working title differs from the published one, and the equation "book in progress = Just One Child" therefore rests on the vault's inference, not on any statement in the 2003 article. This sharpens, and does not resolve, the [unverified-mechanism] flag above.