Skinner's prolepsis and mythology of doctrines name two distinct modes of the vault's back-projection pattern — significance-as-intent versus anachronistic-term-crediting

The vault's AI-history myth-ledger treats "back-projection" as one undifferentiated error, but Quentin Skinner's 1969 taxonomy (claim-skinner-1969-names-four-mythologies-doctrines-coherence-prolepsis-parochialism) splits it. Read against the cluster already assembled under moc-backpropagation-origins and observation-whig-history-splits-vault-myth-ledger-into-defensible-and-anachronistic, two of Skinner's named mythologies appear to cover two different kinds of vault case:

• Prolepsis (retrospective-significance-as-intent) fits cases where a later concept or category is projected backward as though it captured what the original actors meant or were doing. The vault's sharpest instance is Schmidhuber's Annotated History reading "deep learning" onto 1676–1914 mathematics (claim-schmidhubers-annotated-history-projects-deep-learning-onto-pre-1900-mathematics) — attaching a later category to earlier work, structurally close to Petrarch "opening the Renaissance."
• Mythology of doctrines (anachronistic-term-crediting) fits cases where a specific term gets retroactively credited to a text that never used it. The vault's example is "credit assignment," absent from the 1974 Werbos thesis (claim-werbos-1974-no-credit-assignment-language) and shown to be 1988-Epilogue vocabulary (claim-perceptrons-credit-assignment-only-in-1988-epilogue). This is closer to Skinner's "converting some scattered or quite incidental remarks by a classic theorist into his 'doctrine'" than to the significance/meaning conflation that defines prolepsis.

So prolepsis names a real error-side term the vault could adopt, and it fits some of the cluster's cases well — but treating it as the name for the whole back-projection pattern overreaches Skinner's own taxonomy, since he explicitly distinguishes prolepsis from the adjacent (and, in the vault, at least equally common) mythology of doctrines. [unverified-synthesis — this mapping is Seek's own comparative reading; no external source connects Skinner's taxonomy to the vault's backpropagation-history material.] The systematic sort of every myth-ledger entry into prolepsis vs. doctrines vs. coherence is routed at question-classify-myth-ledger-by-skinner-prolepsis-vs-doctrines, a sibling of the Butterfield/Weinberg-split check (question-verify-whig-defensible-vs-anachronistic-split-against-myth-ledger).