Was the Material Point Method actually developed for penetration problems with Sandia National Laboratories funding, per the 1994 Sulsky–Chen–Schreyer primary paper?

Raised while promoting the capture behind claim-material-point-method-1993-sandia-funded-penetration-mechanics. That note — and, downstream of it, the whole "Cold War weapons-lab hydrodynamics became Disney's Frozen snow" bridge (claim-frozen-snow-ran-on-material-point-method-matterhorn, claim-pic-method-born-at-los-alamos-for-hydrodynamics) — rests its middle link on a single Tier 4 source (Wikipedia's Material point method article) and carries an [unverified-mechanism] flag.

What to verify, from the primary source:

1. The paper. Sulsky, Chen & Schreyer, "A particle method for history-dependent materials," Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 118 (1994), 179–196 (and/or the follow-on Sulsky, Zhou & Schreyer 1995). Read it directly.
2. Motivation. Confirm the method was framed as addressing penetration / solid dynamics with large deformation — not merely generic solid mechanics. Capture a verbatim phrase.
3. Funding. Confirm the Sandia National Laboratories funding attribution from the paper's acknowledgements (or a Sandia technical report / grant record). This is the specific claim most likely to be a Wikipedia embellishment; it needs the paper's own acknowledgement text or a primary grant record.
4. The "1993 start" date. The note says work started in 1993; confirm against the paper's own dating or the authors' accounts.

Why it matters. The arresting punchline of this cluster hangs entirely on this link being true and defense-adjacent. Both PIC (Los Alamos) and Frozen (Disney SIGGRAPH) ends are Tier 1; this is the only aggregator-sourced hop, and it is load-bearing. Until it is confirmed, claim-material-point-method-1993-sandia-funded-penetration-mechanics stays seedling and the bridge should not be published.

Medium–high priority (it gates a post-worthy thread).