Hobsbawm & Ranger's "invented tradition" (1983) is the nearest existing academic term to the vault's deep-lineage-myth pattern, but it names fabricated ritual continuity, not misattributed technical credit

Eric Hobsbawm's introduction to The Invention of Tradition (Hobsbawm & Ranger, eds., Cambridge University Press, 1983) opens with the British monarchy's pageantry as an example and states: "'Traditions' which appear or claim to be old are often quite recent in origin and sometimes invented." Its defining sentence on mechanism: "the peculiarity of 'invented' traditions is that the continuity with [a historic past] is largely factitious." The book's case studies — British royal ceremonial, Scottish Highland dress, Welsh cultural revival, colonial rituals in India and Africa — are fabricated rituals and practices, constructed to manufacture social cohesion or legitimize institutional and national authority.

This is the closest pre-existing academic concept to what the vault's myth-correction cluster tracks, but the fit is partial rather than clean subsumption. The vault's cluster — e.g. claim-wikipedia-amari-sgd-citogenesis, claim-barbier-night-writing-designed-for-blind-not-soldiers, claim-standard-gauge-descends-from-stephenson-not-roman-chariots, claim-cullinane-called-ibm-unbundling-software-industry-origin-myth — is almost entirely about misattributed technical or intellectual credit and causal lineage (who really invented what, what really caused what), not manufactured ceremonial continuity, and carries no claim about deliberate institutional legitimation as a motive. An eventual navigation layer built on the vault's domains (see moc-attribution-and-origin-myths) names a neighboring but distinct phenomenon, not a relabeling of Hobsbawm and Ranger's term. Compare claim-lemley-2012-myth-of-sole-inventor, which shares the vault's pattern's general shape (heroic narrative overriding messier documented reality) from the opposite polarity. See entity-eric-hobsbawm.