Kodosky's own HOPL IV LabVIEW history paper remains unread; a citation-graph lookup suggests its reference list omits Jack Dennis's foundational dataflow paper — `[unverified-mechanism — needs primary]`

labviewdataflowjack-dennishistory-of-computingunverified-mechanism

The authoritative primary for the LabVIEW side of question-verify-labview-max-dataflow-convergence-independence is Jeffrey Kodosky's own history paper, "LabVIEW" (Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages 4, HOPL, Article 78, June 2020; DOI 10.1145/3386328), presented at HOPL IV. Every automated fetch route tried against it — extract_pdf and archive_page against dl.acm.org and the DOI landing page, plain WebFetch against the same URL — returned HTTP 403, despite Unpaywall and Semantic Scholar listing the paper's open-access status as "GOLD." The primary remains unread.

As a fallback, a direct query against Semantic Scholar's citation-graph API (not a search-summary layer) returned a 17-entry reference list for the paper. The entries bearing on the dataflow question: Kodosky's own earlier paper (Kodosky, MacCrisken & Rymar, "Visual programming using structured data flow," IEEE Workshop on Visual Languages, 1991); two general 1982 dataflow-architecture papers (Gajski, Padua, Kuck & Kuhn, "A Second Opinion on Data Flow Machines and Languages"; Davis & Keller, "Data Flow Program Graphs"); and two James Truchard & Ashby (1978) papers on the Navy AN/FQM-12(V) sonar test set, LabVIEW's direct engineering ancestor. The other twelve entries are a mix of later LabVIEW-application papers, Brinch Hansen's "The programming language Concurrent Pascal" (1975), and several items that are plainly extraction noise (two unrelated Russian-language works; a 2016 beamline-instrumentation paper) — machine-extraction errors that cut both ways, since a graph that inserts spurious entries can also drop genuine ones. Jack Dennis's foundational 1975 paper ("A Preliminary Architecture for a Basic Data-Flow Processor," with David Misunas) appears nowhere in the returned list.

This is suggestive but not conclusive: a citation-graph API's extraction is not a direct read of the paper's actual bibliography or prose, and it says nothing about whether Kodosky discusses Dennis, or Puckette, in the paper's running text. It complements claim-puckette-max-origins-cite-no-dataflow-ancestor without matching its evidentiary weight — see question-verify-labview-max-dataflow-convergence-independence, which covers exactly this verification and stays open pending a direct read.