Does a primary history-of-linguistics source confirm that Lepsius's Standard Alphabet failed to spread specifically because it was too hard to typeset — and corroborate the Lepsius→Ellis→Sweet→IPA lineage?

Two neighboring notes rest on Tier 4 (Wikipedia) and need a primary history-of-linguistics source to go evergreen:

1. claim-lepsius-standard-alphabet-failed-to-spread-hard-to-typeset — the load-bearing claim that the Standard Alphabet's many diacritics made it "difficult to read and typeset," and that this production-cost problem (not a descriptive shortcoming) is why it failed to spread. This is mildly surprising and load-bearing, so under 00-meta/specs/sources.md it must escalate to Tier 1–2.
2. claim-ipa-descends-from-lepsius-via-ellis-palaeotype-and-sweet-romic — the genealogy Lepsius → Ellis's Palaeotype → Sweet's Romic → the 1888 IPA. Uncontested lineage, so Tier 4 clears the floor, but a primary source would also let the note assert why each step simplified.

What would answer it.

• A scholarly history of phonetic notation (e.g. Kemp's or Albright's accounts of the transcription tradition, MacMahon on phonetic notation, or a study of the IPA's origins) that states the Standard Alphabet's low uptake and attributes it to typographic/practical burden rather than descriptive inadequacy.
• Ideally the same literature pins the Ellis → Sweet → Passy chain and whether each step was an explicit simplification of the predecessor.
• A contemporary (19th-century) review of the Standard Alphabet complaining specifically about typesetting cost would be the strongest primary evidence.

Why it matters beyond the two notes. This is the tile that links the vault's notation-invention cluster (braille standards wars, Barbier, Nemeth/UEB) to its physical-reproduction-constraint cluster (cancel slips, DjVu, Talmud layout). The connective claim — completeness loses to whoever must reproduce or teach the notation at scale — is currently asserted only in commentary because its load-bearing instance sits on one Wikipedia sentence. Sourcing this above the Tier 4 floor is what would let that cross-cluster pattern be stated in a neutral note or MOC rather than hedged.