The 1976-predates-1978/Olsder note and the June-1978-leading-group note connect through a shared document — Greenhalgh's 2003 article — not a shared argument, and the robust pole's corroboration cannot rescue the fragile pole's contested dating

chinapopulation-policyone-child-policyhistoriographycold-war-sciencegreenhalghsong-jianliang-zhongtangolsdercitation-genealogybridge-seedconfirmed-bridge

The 1976-predates-1978 note's entire "1978" dating for Song Jian's cybernetics encounter — the dating Olsder's contested 1975 account threatens to reverse — traces, via the identical citation already on file, to Greenhalgh's 2003 PDR article, p. 170: "The group's leader, Song Jian, got the idea for this project on a delegation visit to Europe in 1978," quoting Song's own words, cited "(Song 1986: 2-3)." Fifteen pages later, at p. 185, the same article states that "at its first meeting in June 1978, the newly revamped Birth Planning Leading Group... recommended that 'it is best to allow only one birth, two are the most, and third births must be strictly controlled,'" approved by the Central Committee and State Council — the passage the June-1978-leading-group note draws on. A prior bridge-check already placed these same two passages, fifteen pages apart, in this article; what neither that note nor either target note had stated directly is that these are the specific citations these two particular notes each rest on, and that the two notes had never been read against each other before this session.

Sharing a document is not sharing an argument. The p. 170 dating rests entirely on Song's own unread 1986 essay — the account Olsder's 1975 story contests. The p. 185 dating rests on a separate citation, "Li 1980: 5," uncontested by anything in the Olsder dispute. Neither citation invokes the other, in the article's own text or in any vault session's reading of it. The Olsder challenge that threatens the 1976-predates-1978 note's sequencing therefore does not touch the June-1978-leading-group note's corroboration, and that corroboration's independent robustness cannot be borrowed back to rescue the contested dating — despite both citations sitting fifteen pages apart in one continuous narrative arc of one article.