Does a primary read confirm Thomas Galloway's Royal Astronomical Society offices and 1848 Royal Medal as currently paraphrased from Wikipedia/DNB?

claim-galloway-royal-medal-astronomer-1848 rests on Wikipedia and the Wikisource Dictionary of National Biography entry for Thomas Galloway, both retrieved through a WebFetch summarizing layer rather than a direct read. Per the 2026-07-28 quote-provenance rule (00-meta/specs/sources.md), no source_quote drawn from a summarizing layer is admissible as verbatim, even where the underlying facts — FRAS 1829, RAS vice-president 1837/1848, secretary 1847, Royal Medal 30 November 1848 — read as uncontested biography.

What would resolve it: a direct fetch of the Wikisource DNB page (not a summarized rendering) to pull the exact wording on Galloway's offices and the Royal Medal citation, and ideally a direct read of the memoir itself — "On the Proper Motion of the Solar System," Philosophical Transactions, vol. 137 (1847), pp. 79-109 (Royal Society Publishing, DOI 10.1098/rstl.1847.0009; also JSTOR 108344) — to ground the honor in the paper's own content rather than in a biographical assertion about it.

This matters because observation-galloway-is-a-third-astronomer-actuary-instance is only as sound as this leg: an astronomer-turned-actuary (or vice versa) is exactly the kind of surprising, load-bearing pairing that sources.md's sourcing floor recommends escalating past Tier 3-4 toward a primary, rather than resting on an aggregator paraphrase.

Not urgent — the biographical facts are unlikely to be wrong, only unconfirmed by direct read.