Does a primary or scholarly source corroborate the 1706 Diesbach/Dippel accidental discovery of Prussian blue?

The question

claim-prussian-blue-accidentally-discovered-1706-as-failed-red-pigment rests on a single Tier-4 Wikipedia source, which itself flags that Dippel's specific role — the contaminated "animal oil" potash borrowed from him — is not corroborated by other historical accounts. Does a primary or reputable scholarly history confirm (a) the ~1706 Berlin date and Diesbach's authorship, and (b) the specific Dippel/animal-oil detail?

Why it matters

The accidental-discovery narrative is the load-bearing point of the note, and one particular of it (Dippel's potash) is the kind of vivid detail that propagates through retellings without primary support — the same failure mode as the separately-discarded Dippel/Frankenstein legend. Historical claims that are surprising or contested should escalate from Tier 3–4 to Tier 1–2 (sources.md sourcing floor).

What would answer it

• An early-modern chemistry history or a peer-reviewed history-of-science article dating and attributing the discovery.
• Ideally the earliest documentary trace (e.g. the 1710 Berlin Academy notice / Frisch–Leibniz correspondence often cited for Prussian blue's first announcement) to test whether Dippel's role is in the contemporary record or a later accretion.

Until answered, the claim-note stays status: seedling.