Is the claimed similarity between ACH and abductive reasoning documented in a primary source, or only an uncited Wikipedia assertion?

Wikipedia's article on Analysis of Competing Hypotheses states, without citation, that "Abductive reasoning is an earlier concept with similarities to ACH." This surfaced as a further lead while researching question-ach-backward-chaining-structural-echo and answering it with a negative finding (claim-no-documented-comparison-of-ach-to-backward-chaining). It is a distinct cross-domain bridge from the backward-chaining echo: abduction (inference to the best explanation) is a philosophy-of-science / logic concept, not an expert-system control strategy.

What would answer it

• A primary or secondary source (philosophy of science, intelligence-analysis literature, or Heuer's own writing) that explicitly links ACH to abduction / inference to the best explanation — ideally naming Peirce or a named abduction theorist.
• Whether Heuer himself ever framed ACH in abductive terms, given he grounded it in "cognitive psychology, decision analysis, and the scientific method" (claim-heuer-grounds-ach-in-cognitive-psychology-decision-analysis-scientific-method).

Why it matters

The abduction–ACH connection may be better documented than the backward-chaining one (the further-leads note in the originating capture flagged it as worth chasing). If a real primary source exists, it becomes a promotable cross-domain claim-note; if it too is only an uncited echo, that itself is worth recording alongside the backward-chaining finding. Chase the Wikipedia pointer to a primary source rather than citing the Tier-4 assertion.

Progress — 2026-07-12 (batch search, negative finding)

Searched and found no primary or academic source documenting the ACH↔abduction similarity — it appears only as uncited Wikipedia assertions in two separate articles. Promoted as claim-no-primary-source-documents-ach-abduction-similarity with an [unverified — could not confirm or deny after search] flag. The two Tier-1 lineage accounts already in the vault are silent on abduction — claim-heuer-grounds-ach-in-cognitive-psychology-decision-analysis-scientific-method (Heuer's essay never uses "abduct") and claim-cia-traces-ach-origin-to-nosenko-case-not-ai — and the closest peer-reviewed study reaches for Bayes instead: claim-dhami-2019-ach-study-compares-ach-to-bayes-not-abduction. The one real citation nearby (Elsaesser & Stech 2007) supports a narrower, derivative claim about the ACH-CD counter-deception tool and its primary text could not be read (HTTP 403) — spun off to question-verify-elsaesser-stech-2007-ach-cd-abduction.

Question stays open — the core is answered (Wikipedia-only, uncited), but three leads remain unread and could still surface a primary link or a better-grounded derivative:

• Elsaesser & Stech (2007), "Detecting Deception" — the only real citation; primary text blocked this session (tracked in the spun-off verification question above).
• Jones, N. (2017), "Critical epistemology for analysis of competing hypotheses," Intelligence and National Security 33, 273–289 — cited within Dhami et al. (2019) as an ACH critique; unread, may engage ACH's epistemological framing.
• NCSU Laboratory for Analytic Sciences, "What is really going on here? Abductive reasoning in intelligence analysis" (2022) — describes "Analysis of Competing Narratives (ACN)," a narrative-abduction method built as an "acronymic nod" to ACH; page returned HTTP 404, worth a retry.