In a separate review paper ("Re-inventing Willis," arXiv physics/0601192 v3, published as Physics Reports 502), Simkin and Roychowdhury independently re-derive Kimura and Crow's 1964 allele-distribution problem from scratch and check it against Sewall Wright's 1931 result

population-geneticsneutral-theorycitation-copyinginfinite-alleles-modelcross-domain-bridgeverificationkimura-crow-1964

In "Re-inventing Willis" — a review paper distinct from "A mathematical theory of citing" (arXiv physics/0504094, 2005; JASIST 58(11):1661–1673, 2007), which is what supplies the vault's Kimura–Crow citation attribution — M.V. Simkin and V.P. Roychowdhury devote a full section ("26. Distribution of genes") to restating and solving the Kimura–Crow problem themselves: "There is a fixed size population and within it there are many alleles... With the probability α any individual gene can mutate creating a new allele. Kimura and Crow asked what the distribution of alleles in any given generation is." They then derive a solution of their own — not quoted from Kimura and Crow's text, but built on the method of Sewall Wright's earlier work, which they state Kimura and Crow's own paper was based on — and explicitly verify their result reduces to Wright's known formula in the appropriate limit: "If we take the limit of large N... and set v to zero in the equation on the top of page 123 of Ref.[72], we recover Eq.(26.7)."

Which version of this paper is being read matters, and the paper's own dating of Wright does too. The text containing section 26 is the revision posted to arXiv as v3 on 17 February 2011 and published as Physics Reports 502 (2011) 1–35 — a refereed review article, not an unrefereed working paper. The v1 preprint of 25 January 2006 is a 12-page text with no numbered sections, no "Distribution of genes" section and no Kimura-and-Crow reference at all, so the re-derivation cannot be dated to 2006 (this note's filename retains "2006" from the original promotion, as a stable identifier). Separately, the paper's prose dates the antecedent to "the 1930 work of Wright [72]" while its own reference [72] is Wright's 1931 Genetics paper, and the "equation on the top of page 123" it cross-checks against falls inside that paper's pages 97–159: the 1931 identification is the reference list's, not the prose's, and the mismatch is the source's own.

This is materially stronger evidence than a citation. Rather than naming Kimura and Crow (1964) and moving on, one of the two author pairs the vault's citation-copying cluster already credits with that citation here reconstructs the 1964 problem's exact setup, solves it by its own route, and cross-checks the answer against the specific earlier result Kimura and Crow themselves built on. The paper's reference list confirms ref [71] as Kimura and Crow's 1964 Genetics paper and ref [72] as Wright's 1931 "Evolution in Mendelian populations" — the same antecedent this vault's other notes already track. The resulting closed-form distribution itself is not quoted verbatim here: the vault's existing finding that pdftotext mangles inline mathematical notation in a way that defeats exact-match verification, even when surrounding prose is genuine, means the derivation path is described in prose rather than risking a corrupted equation string.

This narrows, without fully closing, the open question of whether Kimura and Crow (1964) is a genuine shared mathematical ancestor or a loose shared name: it is strong indirect technical corroboration, not a first-hand read of the 1964 primary itself, which remains unread by any vault session.