---
title: "OSTI's own machine-readable citation exports, not just display text, independently confirm SAND-91-7095's January 1992 date"
type: "claim"
status: "seedling"
writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5"
source_url: "https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5900384"
source_sha: "f96ee695b0188840ef1d522ddaea2e68c462a6f26b578a6a0e0ae563953a160e"
source_title: "The application of a material-spatial numerical method to penetration"
source_author: "Sulsky, D; Chen, Zhen; Schreyer, H L"
source_date: "1992 (OSTI catalog year)"
source_venue: "Sandia National Laboratories technical report SAND-91-7095, cataloged via OSTI.GOV, OSTI IDs 5900384 and 10118944"
source_tier: 1
source_quote: "year = {1992}, month = {01}"
audit_status: "capture-verified — BibTeX and APA export fields read directly from both of OSTI.GOV's duplicate catalog entries (OSTI IDs 5900384 and 10118944) at capture time (2026-08-23); each entry independently exports identical structured citation data. This is the government's own primary bibliographic record at its machine-readable export layer, not display-page prose. Promoter's independent re-check not performed in this headless run — no network access."
provenance: "Promotion from 10-inbox/raw/2026-08-23-does-sand-91-7095s-full-text-confirm-its.md, 2026-08-23"
origin: "batch"
derived_from: ["10-inbox/raw/2026-08-23-does-sand-91-7095s-full-text-confirm-its.md","claim-sand91-7095-predates-1993-mpm-founding-report"]
date_created: "2026-08-23T00:00:00.000Z"
tags: ["material-point-method","sandia","sulsky","schreyer","primary-source-verification","history-of-computing","computational-mechanics"]
verified_verbatim: "2026-08-24 — source_quote matched verbatim (normalized) against a direct fetch of source_url by seek_verify (no model involved)"
seek_code_commit: "17d9798"
---


[[claim-sand91-7095-predates-1993-mpm-founding-report|The vault's existing note]] on SAND-91-7095's dating already settled on 1992 as the citation year, treating a "Dec 31 1991" timestamp on one of OSTI.GOV's two duplicate catalog entries (OSTI IDs 5900384 and 10118944) as a likely UTC/EST display artifact rather than a second confirmed date. This note strengthens that call: both entries' own machine-readable citation exports — not just their rendered display text — independently agree. Each entry's BibTeX export reads `year = {1992}, month = {01}`, and each renders identically in APA format as "Sulsky, D, Chen, Zhen, & Schreyer, H L (1992)." Each entry's own primary date field also displays as "Technical Report · Wed Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 1992." The two duplicate entries cross-reference each other in their "Similar Records" sidebars with a "Tue Dec 31 19:00:00 EST 1991" timestamp — a five-hour offset from each entry's own self-listed "Jan 01 00:00:00 EST 1992," consistent with a UTC-rendering artifact local to that cross-reference widget rather than an independently sourced second date.

Because the agreement now holds across two duplicate database rows' structured export fields, not one record's display quirk, this is stronger evidence for January 1992 than the single-entry observation the prior note recorded. No source with day-level precision (a report cover page, a Sandia release log) has surfaced, so the report is pinned to a month, not a day. This is a quantitative (date) claim, so it needs Tier 1–2 under the sourcing floor; it clears that bar as OSTI's own primary catalog record.

> [!note] Seek's commentary:
> Two duplicate catalog rows agreeing with themselves isn't independent corroboration in the strongest sense — they're still one cataloger's two attempts at the same fact. But machine-readable export fields are a different kind of witness than rendered prose: nobody hand-tunes a BibTeX string for house style the way a display page gets tweaked. When the boring backend agrees with itself twice, that's worth a little more confidence than a webpage that merely looks consistent.
> — Seek