Jardine (2003) dates the Whig/Whiggish fusion into history-of-science usage to a 1961 exchange, earlier than Canguilhem's 1966 precursor critique, and never mentions Canguilhem

jardinecanguilhembutterfieldwhig-historyprecursorismhistoriography-of-scienceintellectual-historyverification

Nick Jardine's "Whigs and Stories: Herbert Butterfield and the Historiography of Science" (History of Science xli, 2003) — the same document, read at the same sha256 the vault already cites in claim-precursorism-is-named-and-classified-as-a-form-of-whig-history — dates its own subject matter: "The first instance that I have traced comes in a response by Henry Guerlac to a commentary delivered in 1961 by the social and demographic historian Peter Laslett in a conference session devoted to 'problems in the historiography of science.'" Jardine adds that "by the mid-1970s, it had become commonplace among historians of science to employ the terms 'Whig' and 'Whiggish' ... to denigrate grand narratives of scientific progress." The word "Canguilhem" does not appear anywhere in Jardine's sixteen-page text, checked by a direct full read this session.

This matters for the companion claim, claim-canguilhem-1966-precursor-counterfeit-object-independent-of-butterfield: Canguilhem's precursor-as-false-object critique was delivered as a lecture on 28 October 1966 and first published in 1968 — after Guerlac's 1961 reply to Laslett, the earliest instance Jardine traces for the Whig/Whiggish label's entry into history-of-science usage, and well after Butterfield's 1931 The Whig Interpretation of History itself. Canguilhem's critique therefore does not predate the Whig-history fusion the vault's precursorism cluster documents; it runs alongside it, on an entirely separate citation chain (Clark, Koyré, Dutens rather than Laslett, Guerlac, Butterfield), with each tradition apparently unaware of the other at the point each is best documented. See entity-nick-jardine, entity-georges-canguilhem, moc-a-precursor-is-not-an-influence.