Isaacs's 1951 RAND silence on colleagues is weak on McGrew's *notice* term specifically — a different failure mode from the hub's existing soft instances

argument-from-silencemcgrewrufus-isaacscold-war-sciencehistoriographyepistemicsmoc-maintenance

moc-argument-from-silence grades the vault's negative-citation findings on McGrew (2013)'s product of three probabilities: whether the author would have noticed the fact (N), recorded it (R), and whether the record would have survived (S). The hub's two existing soft instances both locate their weakness in the same term, record: Dreyfus's silence is soft because the disputed 1973 primary itself is unread while the silence lives only in his other retrospectives, and Kodosky/Dennis's is soft for a sharper version of the same reason — the paper has never been read at all, so a citation-graph extraction stands in for a direct read of the bibliography.

Isaacs's P-257 silence is weak on a different term: notice. The document was read in full — record and survival are both solid — but P-257 is a solo 14-page technical exposition of differential pursuit games that never poses a question whose answer would include a colleague's name, unlike Blackwell's oral history (asked, and answered, "who else was at RAND") or Nash's 1952 report (which chose to thank two named people). A low P(notice) is a genre fact about the document — a solo technical note has no occasion to thank anybody — not a fact about whom Isaacs did or didn't know. This is a failure mode the hub's ledger had not yet logged: both of its existing soft cases are soft because the record is incomplete or unread; this one is soft because the document itself never had reason to generate the kind of record a silence argument needs.