In January 2016, as UEB implementation went live, the NFB's Braille Monitor explicitly asked whether the US braille-code split was 'turning the clock back' to 1871-1932-style geographic fragmentation — as a rhetorical warning, not a documented finding

disability-historybrailletactile-technologystandards-warsaccessibility-technemeth-codeunified-english-braillecross-time-bridge

Steve Jacobson, writing in the National Federation of the Blind's Braille Monitor the same month UEB implementation went live in the US, asked the exact question this vault's routed question was built to check — but he asked it as a caution about what could happen, not as a report of an observed correlation: "Are we turning the clock back one hundred years to a time when the Braille code is defined in part by geographic boundaries within the United States or the school attended?"

This establishes that the historical parallel claim-war-of-the-dots-competing-braille-systems-1829-1932 and claim-bana-2012-ueb-adoption-kept-nemeth-code-parallel draw was already a live, self-aware part of the field's own internal argument in 2016 — practitioners worried, at the moment of rollout, about repeating the 1871-1932 fragmentation. It does not establish that the parallel holds empirically. No source located in this capture's search — including Jacobson's own piece — performs the actual comparison: overlaying a documented state-by-state or institution-by-institution 1871-1932 adoption map against a current state-level Nemeth/UEB roster (see claim-bear-2022-count-most-us-states-default-to-nemeth-for-technical-braille for the closest available modern count, itself unverified).