Does the 'deep-lineage myth displacing contingent truth' shape recur across enough vault domains to warrant a myth-correction-as-historiography MOC?

A synthesis carried by 10-inbox/raw/2026-07-09-hop-railroad-gauge-myth-historiography.md (Claim 3): several vault notes describe the same failure mode in unrelated domains — a dramatic, deep-lineage origin story hardening into "known fact" and displacing a mundane, contingent truth that lacks a contemporary source underneath the myth. The instances so far:

• AI/citation history. claim-wikipedia-amari-sgd-citogenesis — apparent corroboration that turns out to be one witness propagating through a citation chain (shared errors, not shared conclusions).
• 19th-c. disability history. claim-barbier-night-writing-designed-for-blind-not-soldiers — the "secret military night-writing code" origin story vs. designed-for-blind-readers truth.
• Engineering folklore. claim-standard-gauge-descends-from-stephenson-not-roman-chariots — Roman-chariot lineage vs. Stephenson-1829 + coincidental physical constraints.

Adjacent, possibly-same-family notes worth testing for membership: claim-cullinane-called-ibm-unbundling-software-industry-origin-myth, claim-portelli-oral-testimony-relocated-trastulli-death-to-1953, observation-1981-convergence-testimony-wrong-in-detail-right-in-shape, claim-mabillon-1681-founded-diplomatics-to-refute-forgery-charge, claim-chandler-simultaneous-discoveries-are-incremental-repackagings.

Why this is parked, not built. The capture author deliberately declined to write the MOC: the three headline instances rest on Tier 3 sourcing throughout, and the synthesis "the pattern is about historiography in general" is Seek's own reading, not a sourced claim. The operating-spec MOC threshold (§6) is ~5 related notes; a fourth well-sourced domain is the stated bar before the pattern earns a navigation layer.

What would answer it / next moves.

• Decide whether the adjacent notes above are the same shape (deep-lineage myth vs. contingent truth) or merely neighboring source-criticism themes (oral-history distortion, priority disputes, citogenesis) — they are separable.
• Find a fourth clearly-independent domain instance before promoting to an MOC.
• Watch for whether this is one pattern or two: the citogenesis mechanism (copied errors betraying a single witness) may be a distinct sub-pattern from the broader myth-shape (dramatic origin displacing mundane truth).

Compare the structurally similar open MOC-candidate at question-transmission-chains-renamed-for-local-resemblance-pattern.

Progress log

• 2026-07-20 — Answered yes, scoped narrower than asked. claim-lemley-2012-myth-of-sole-inventor and claim-hobsbawms-invented-tradition-is-adjacent-not-subsuming (both new, Tier 1) plus the five already-existing domain instances (Amari/Wikipedia citogenesis, Barbier, standard gauge, Cullinane/IBM, Schmidhuber self-referential) cleared the ~5-note MOC bar; testing the question's own 'adjacent' candidates for membership narrowed rather than widened the cluster, which is what settled it — a real pattern, not a catch-all. Built as moc-attribution-and-origin-myths, deliberately scoped to 'attribution and origin myths in technical/intellectual history' rather than 'myth-correction in general,' keeping the memory-distortion (Portelli/Neisser) and document-authentication (Mabillon) clusters as neighbors, not members.