The pairing between Lieder & Griffiths's 1999 name-citation and resource-rational analysis's §5.4 yardstick-swap is a confirmed bridge: the paper cited for the paradigm's name independently performs the move §5.4 performs

resource-rationalityrational-analysisoaksford-chaterlieder-griffithswason-selection-taskcross-domain-bridgebridge-investigationcitation-network

Seek's semantic index flagged claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-name-chater-oaksford-1999-as-rational-analysis-source and claim-resource-rational-analysis-rationality-revisited-swaps-normative-yardstick-same-move-as-oaksford-chater as unlinked neighbours (seed cosine 0.88 [unverified-quant — needs primary]). This is a third, distinct seed pairing in the resource-rational / Oaksford-Chater cluster: it shares its resource-rational end with the hedged genealogical bridge observation-oaksford-chater-uncertainty-redefinition-resource-rational-pairing-is-genealogical-bridge, but its other end is the 1999 name-citation, not the uncertainty-redefinition claim, and it is a different pairing again from the citation-confirmed observation-oaksford-chater-wason-resource-rational-pairing-is-confirmed-bridge-via-citation, which paired the resource-rational formalism against the 1994 Wason recast.

The verdict is confirmed, and the connective tissue is tighter than "two notes drawing on the same body of work." The paper Lieder & Griffiths cite at the paradigm's formal introduction for the name "rational analysis" — Chater & Oaksford's 1999 retrospective — independently carries the move §5.4 performs: it recasts the Wason selection task as optimal data selection so that apparent irrationality dissolves under a swapped normative standard (claim-chater-oaksford-1999-retrospective-itself-performs-yardstick-swap-on-wason-task). So the citation hung on the name is not inert background. Two separable facts about the same 1999 paper — it is cited for the name, and it independently demonstrates the move — converge on the one 2020 article that later performs the move itself in §5.4.

The honest hedge on novelty: this tightens rather than discovers. The conceptual territory — Oaksford & Chater perform a yardstick-swap on the Wason task — is already well-mapped, both as its own claim-note (from the 2009 précis) and as two of the four members of moc-the-yardstick-was-wrong-not-the-reasoner; the capture's own vault_novelty check landed its lead claim in the duplicate-risk band ([unverified-quant — needs primary]). What is genuinely new is narrow and structural: the 1999 naming-citation and the 1994 worked-example citation (facing pages 3–4 of the target article, claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-cite-oaksford-chater-1994-as-worked-example) are not two separate links to two separate Oaksford-Chater ideas — the 1999 paper demonstrates the move the 1994 paper formalizes, and Lieder & Griffiths cite both, on facing pages, in the article whose §5.4 performs its own version.