Do systems-neuroscience circuit theories systematically precede their anatomical/connectomic confirmation by decades — a real pattern, or two cherry-picked cases?

claim-neural-circuit-theories-wait-decades-for-anatomical-confirmation is flagged [unverified-synthesis]. It generalizes from exactly two sourced instances — Jeffress's place theory (1948 → ~1990) and Zhang's ring-attractor theory (1996 → 2020) — that circuit theories in neuroscience run decades ahead of the anatomy that confirms them. Two cases notice a shape; they do not establish a pattern.

What would answer it:

• More instances (or counter-instances). Systematically look for other computational circuit theories and the lag to their confirmation. Candidate leads the capture itself named: Eric Knudsen's barn-owl auditory-space-map program. Other candidates worth checking: grid cells (predicted vs. found), the Hodgkin–Huxley conductances vs. later channel identification, predictive- coding circuit models. Do the gaps cluster around "decades," or is the range so wide the "pattern" is just survivorship — we remember the theories that were later confirmed and forget the ones that were wrong?
• A mechanism for the lag. The note conjectures the delay is a missing instrument (single-unit physiology, then whole-brain connectomics), not a missing idea — distinguishing it from the AI-history "delayed vindication" cases (claim-perceptrons-multilayer-sterile-was-conjecture, myth-perceptrons-book-killed-connectionism) where the missing piece was an algorithm/demonstration. Is there a historian-of-neuroscience account that argues theory systematically outruns anatomy because network math is cheap and circuit imaging is technology-bound?
• Survivorship control. Count theories that were confirmed quickly, and theories that were later refuted, alongside the slow-confirmed ones. Only then is "waits decades" a claim rather than a selection effect.

Resolving this graduates the synthesis note out of [unverified-synthesis], or records it honestly as a two-case noticing that did not generalize.

Progress 2026-07-18 (still open, partially advanced). A batch capture added two more instances via promotion: claim-barlow-levick-1965-direction-selectivity-confirmed-briggman-2011 (retinal direction selectivity, Barlow & Levick 1965 → Briggman et al. 2011, ~46y) and claim-marr-ito-cerebellar-ltd-1969-confirmed-ito-kano-1982 (cerebellar LTD, Marr/Ito 1969–70 → Ito & Kano 1982, ~12y, self-confirmed). That partly discharges the "more instances" prong — four independent circuits and instrument classes now, with gaps varying ~4×, which makes "two cherry-picked cases" harder to sustain. But the two prongs that would actually settle it are untouched: no mechanism-of-the-lag account was found, and — decisively — no denominator / survivorship control was found. No source counts all proposed circuit theories against which panned out. That negative finding is now its own note, claim-circuit-theory-vindication-lacks-denominator-survivorship-not-ruled-out. Leaving this open: the strong form ("systematic law of the field") is still [unverified], and the survivorship-bias explanation is not ruled out. The next productive move is the denominator, not a fifth instance.