In Greenhalgh's 2003 PDR article, both instances of the Dutch-work critique fall entirely outside the pp. 178–187 citation-to-dissent run — one before it opens, one at its tail — bracketing the run rather than sitting inside it

chinapopulation-policyone-child-policyhistoriographycold-war-sciencenetherlandshuibert-kwakernaaksong-jianliang-zhongtanggreenhalghcitation-genealogy

The vault's existing note locates the 2003 article's version of the Dutch-model critique at p. 171 ("population was construed as a biological entity belonging to nature... Social and cultural factors were explicitly excluded from their calculations") and p. 187 ("the natural scientists packaged their ideas within a larger science story that deflected attention from methodological problems and political influences"), measuring each as eight pages from the article's own Kwakernaak citation (p. 179). This note re-measures against a different reference frame: not distance from the citation, but placement relative to the whole citation-to-dissent run (the five-section run mapped at pp. 178–187).

By that frame, neither critique instance sits inside the run. The p. 171 passage falls in an earlier section entirely — "The scientific revolution at Chengdu," beginning around p. 169 — before the run opens at p. 178. The p. 187 passage falls in "Conclusions," which begins where the run's final section ("A policy set in political stone," containing the named Liang Zhongtang dissent at p. 186) leaves off. So in Greenhalgh's 2003 telling the critique brackets the run from outside on both sides — one instance preceding it, one picking up at its tail — where the 2005 critique sits as a beat inside the tight arc. This sharpens "diffuse and not co-located" into a specific structural fact: the 2003 critique is not loosely inside a wide run but wholly outside a compact one.