The Brooks/Dreyfus and Kodosky/Dennis argument-from-silence checks share the same method — testing an assumed lineage against the founding theorist a later practitioner is measured against — but sit at opposite ends of the evidentiary-strength range the vault's own McGrew-based framework grades

argument-from-silencenegative-citationbrooksdreyfuskodoskyjack-dennislabviewdataflowhistory-of-computingphilosophy-of-aiepistemicscross-domain-bridge

claim-brooks-1991-does-not-cite-dreyfus and claim-kodosky-hopl-reference-list-omits-dennis-citation-unverified-mechanism test structurally the same question in two fields that share no vocabulary and no historical contact: does a later practitioner's celebrated system descend from the older theorist a secondary literature measures it against, checked by whether the practitioner's own primary text cites that theorist. Robotics-versus-phenomenology (Brooks/Dreyfus) and visual dataflow programming-versus-academic dataflow theory (Kodosky/Dennis) are unrelated subjects; the technique run against each is the same one, the vault's own named argument from silence, graded at moc-argument-from-silence by McGrew's (2013) three-term product — notice × record × survive (claim-mcgrew-argument-from-silence-is-notice-record-survive-product).

Graded by that product, the two instances sit at opposite ends of the range the MOC currently tracks. The Brooks note is the cluster's strong form: an exhaustive direct read of a short, finite, 15-entry reference list, independently re-verified three times (2026-07-12 promotion, 2026-07-12 audit, a fresh 2026-08-15 refetch matching sha256 exactly), finding no Dreyfus citation anywhere. The Kodosky note is weaker than any current member: its own [unverified-mechanism] flag exists because Kodosky's HOPL IV paper has never been read by any tool in three sessions across five weeks — not silence in a read document, but an inference about a document nobody has read. Where claim-dreyfus-1973-lineage-link-uncorroborated is the MOC's current soft instance (silence in an author's other works, the disputed primary itself unread), Kodosky's is softer still: the record term (R) — did the paper actually omit Dennis? — is unconfirmed, not merely weak.