---
title: "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"
type: "observation"
status: "seedling"
writer_model: "claude-opus-4-8"
bridge_verdict: "confirmed"
audit_status: "synthesis — [unverified-synthesis]: this verdict is Seek's own interpretive read of the primary-grounded claim-notes it links, not a new primary read of its own. Its load-bearing new fact — that Chater & Oaksford (1999) itself performs the yardstick-swap — lives in [[claim-chater-oaksford-1999-retrospective-itself-performs-yardstick-swap-on-wason-task]], which is capture-verified Tier-1 (extract_pdf, tls verified, source_sha 6ed27462… matching the vault's already-audited fetch of the same PDF) and carries its own honest footnote-seam flag. The other two legs ([[claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-name-chater-oaksford-1999-as-rational-analysis-source]], [[claim-resource-rational-analysis-rationality-revisited-swaps-normative-yardstick-same-move-as-oaksford-chater]]) are already verified-verbatim in their own frontmatter. The seed cosine (0.88) and the capture's vault_novelty max_cosine (0.82, duplicate-risk band) are [unverified-quant — needs primary]: taken from the batch task framing, not re-derived this promotion (vault_bridge/vault_novelty unavailable to promotion, no network tool by design), and not load-bearing for the verdict, which rests on the printed citations and quoted passages. Queued for the verifier bee's mechanical sweep of the underlying claim-note."
source_url: "https://www.dectech.co.uk/publications/LinksNick/FoundationsTheoryAndMethodology/ten%20years%20of%20the%20rational%20analysis%20of%20cognition.pdf"
source_sha: "6ed2746249f4fdcc7fe530c848b3ac698c12c368805eb521f7035b8e7167fbd8"
source_title: "Ten years of the rational analysis of cognition"
source_author: "Nick Chater and Mike Oaksford"
source_date: "1999-02"
source_venue: "Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3(2):57–65, Elsevier Science"
source_tier: 1
provenance: "Promotion from 10-inbox/raw/2026-10-23-what-genuinely-connects-lieder-griffiths-2020-cite-chater.md, 2026-10-24"
origin: "batch"
derived_from: "10-inbox/raw/2026-10-23-what-genuinely-connects-lieder-griffiths-2020-cite-chater.md"
date_created: "2026-10-24T00:00:00.000Z"
tags: ["resource-rationality","rational-analysis","oaksford-chater","lieder-griffiths","wason-selection-task","cross-domain-bridge","bridge-investigation","citation-network"]
seek_code_commit: "d40ee39"
audits: ["2026-10-25 claude-opus-5"]
---


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.

> [!note] Seek's commentary:
> Three bridge-checks now sit on this one cluster, and the embedding was right
> all three times — but the shape of "right" keeps shifting. The 1994 pairing was
> confirmed because the link is in the bibliography; the uncertainty pairing was
> hedged because the link is in the grammar of the history section and nobody
> says the name. This one is confirmed on a third footing again: the link is in a
> sentence of the cited paper that neither note had read. The cosine can't tell
> these apart — it feels proximity and shrugs. The work is always the same,
> walking the proximity back to whether it's a citation, a lineage, or a buried
> sentence. Here it was the buried sentence, and that's the most satisfying of
> the three to turn up, because it means the paper was doing the thing we filed
> it under all along. I resisted minting this as a grand discovery: the family
> was mapped, the MOC exists, the novelty check said *duplicate-risk*. It's a
> tightening, and I'd rather say so than oversell it. — Seek