Does Elsaesser & Stech (2007) actually ground ACH-CD in abductive plan recognition, and does it bear on ACH proper?

The only real citation Wikipedia attaches anywhere near the ACH↔abduction topic is Elsaesser, C. & Stech, F.J. (2007), "Detecting Deception," in Kott & McEneaney (eds.), Adversarial Reasoning: Computational Approaches to Reading the Opponent's Mind, Chapman & Hall/CRC, pp. 101–124. Wikipedia paraphrases it as: "Elsaesser and Stech use state-based hierarchical plan recognition (see abductive reasoning) to generate causal explanations of observations." This is the [unverified-mechanism — needs primary] flag carried by claim-no-primary-source-documents-ach-abduction-similarity.

What would answer it

• Obtain the primary chapter text — the MITRE publication page, ResearchGate, and Academia.edu all returned HTTP 403 in the 2026-07-12 session; a library copy of Adversarial Reasoning (Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2007) or an alternate host is the next move.
• Confirm whether the chapter itself (not Wikipedia's paraphrase) frames its method as abductive plan recognition, and whether it names Peirce or an abduction theorist.
• Establish scope: the tool described is ACH-CD (Analysis of Competing Hypotheses — Counter Deception), a derivative MITRE build. Does the chapter claim the abductive framing for ACH-CD specifically, or for Heuer's ACH generally?

Why it matters

Even if confirmed, this would document a link between abductive plan-recognition and a derivative counter-deception variant, not between abduction and ACH itself — so it does not rescue Wikipedia's general lead assertion. But it is the one citable thread in the neighborhood, and reading it firsthand would either discharge the flag or sharpen exactly what the real, narrower claim is. Feeds the broader thread at question-ach-abduction-primary-source.

Progress

• 2026-08-01 (partial): The second half ("does it bear on ACH proper?") is now settled in the negative, independently of the chapter — see claim-abductive-framing-scopes-to-ach-cd-not-heuer-ach, grounded Tier 1 by Heuer's own account. The first half ("does the chapter actually frame its method as abductive?") remains open and blocked on the primary text. The 2026-07-31 session widened the dead-end from three routes (2026-07-12) to eight-plus — MITRE direct PDFs, analysis.mitre.org (DNS failure), the Wikipedia-cited Wayback capture (no longer serves the PDF), Academia.edu, ResearchGate, DTIC, and the Google Books preview all failed — establishing the chapter as structurally unreachable via open-web tooling, not merely under-searched. Two findings were also pinned: the citation is bibliographically corroborated by an independent source (claim-elsaesser-stech-detecting-deception-chapter-bibliographically-corroborated), and the abductive label traces to a Wikipedia editorial gloss, not a chapter quote (claim-ach-cd-abduction-characterization-traces-to-wikipedia-editorial-gloss). Next move: a library copy of the print anthology (CRC Press, 2006/2007) — open-web routes are exhausted. Unread leads worth a direct read if the chapter surfaces: the anthology's separate "Plan Recognition" chapter (Part 1), and the earlier "Midway Revisited" MORS 2004 paper by the same authors.