The Kapat-sandhi/gelosia identification in a Lilavati commentary is stated plainly only by a Tier 3 source in this vault's search

history-of-mathematicslattice-multiplicationtransmission-of-knowledgeverification

Flag: [unverified-mechanism — needs primary]

A named-author paper (Rastogi & Nitin, whose JJT University affiliation appears in the paper's own byline; the hosting site, instavm.org, is the Institute for the Advancement of Vedic Mathematics, a Vedic-mathematics advocacy non-profit, not a university domain) states plainly that "Ganesa in his commentary on the Lilavati also calls the gelosia method as the kapat-sandhi method," citing D.E. Smith's History of Mathematics Vol. II (1958), p. 115, and Datta & Singh's History of Hindu Mathematics (1935), p. 138, as its authorities. This is the single most direct statement of the Indian-leg identity claim found in this vault's search so far, and it is more specific than Wikipedia's own "very similar to" phrasing — it names the actual commentator (Ganesa, not just "a commentary") and gives two classical secondary citations.

But the paper's publication venue could not be established: it is hosted at instavm.org with no journal name, volume, or peer-review notice visible anywhere in the document, so it does not clear the Tier 1–2 floor 00-meta/specs/sources.md sets for a technical-mechanism/identity claim (equating two named methods). The two underlying classic sources it cites were not independently locatable in full text this session. This claim bears on the Indian leg of claim-lattice-multiplication-india-maghreb-italy-transmission-chain and is recorded here — more specific than what that note currently carries — but kept at seedling, not promoted to verified. Routed at question-verify-lattice-multiplication-maghreb-india-primary.