Werbos's 1974 thesis never mentions Linnainmaa — and Schmidhuber's "Section 5.5.1" locator doesn't structurally exist in the 1974 text

Four convergent Tier-1 reads settle the independent-derivation question:

1. The thesis, read in full: "Linnainmaa" (and OCR variants) appears nowhere — no chapter, footnote, or bibliography entry. The ordered-derivative theorem (Ch. II §xii) is defined, stated, and proved in first person with zero citations attached to the technique; the only acknowledged near-precursor anywhere is Kashyap's "constrained derivative," explicitly distinguished (fn. above).
2. Werbos's own 2004 essay — written for the AD community, naming his actual precursors ("Jacobsen and Mayne, by Bryson and Ho, and by Kashyap") — also never says "Linnainmaa," and confirms the thesis's NN content was deliberately minimal: "I put a few words into chapter 5 to specify essential ideas, but no more."
3. Schmidhuber's 2015 survey (the locator's source, read in full) connects Werbos 1974 to Linnainmaa only with "Compare" — no citation-lineage claim in either direction.
4. The locator anomaly: the 1974 thesis numbers chapters (I)–(VI) and subsections (i), (ii)… — no decimal "5.5.1" exists in the document. Plausibly a renumbering artifact of the 1994 Wiley reprint (The Roots of Backpropagation) — flagged, unresolved.

So Werbos joins Speelpenning (claim-speelpenning-1980-does-not-cite-linnainmaa) in the pattern: the independent rediscoverers didn't cite the priority-holder because the literatures didn't touch (claim-ml-and-ad-communities-mutually-unaware, claim-reverse-mode-multiple-independent-discovery, claim-linnainmaa-priority-not-paternity). Reception side, now quantified: claim-linnainmaa-1976-citation-histogram.