Do Merton's own writings confirm that multiple discovery is science's dominant pattern, and that the multiple-discovery concept itself had 18+ independent predecessors?

Why it matters. This gates two notes at once: claim-merton-multiple-discovery-is-sciences-dominant-pattern and claim-multiple-discovery-concept-was-itself-multiply-discovered. Both currently rest on a single Tier-3 independent blog (measureformeasure.co), which quotes Merton and enumerates his predecessors without the primary being read in this chain. The first is a load-bearing, somewhat surprising thesis ("singletons are the anomaly"); the second is a quantitative/biographical claim (a specific count and dated predecessor list) — both are exactly the cases the sourcing floor (00-meta/specs/sources.md) says must escalate to Tier 1–2. Both notes stay seedling until the primary is read.

What to read.

1. Robert K. Merton, "Singletons and Multiples in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 105:5 (1961), 470–486 — reprinted in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973). Confirm:
   • the exact wording of the dominant-pattern thesis (the blog gives "the pattern of independent multiple discoveries in science is in principle the dominant pattern rather than a subsidiary one" — check verbatim against Merton);
   • Merton's own list of predecessors who anticipated the multiple-discovery idea. Merton's paper is itself the standard source for the reflexive point, enumerating forerunners. Verify the count (the blog claims "18+") and the named/dated instances (Macaulay 1828, Galton 1869, Ogburn & Thomas 1922, Duhem) against Merton's own enumeration, and note any the blog adds beyond Merton's list.

On success: upgrade both notes' source_tier toward 1–2 with exact quotes, move their audit_status off flagged, clear the [unverified-quant] flag on the predecessor count, and retire this question to _answered/ with wikilinks back. If the primary narrows either claim (e.g. the "dominant pattern" phrasing is the blog's gloss, or the predecessor count differs), revise the notes rather than promote them.