Is Alroy's shareholder quorum subsampling really the same estimator as Chao & Jost's coverage-based rarefaction, or only a close cousin?

claim-paleobiology-reinvented-coverage-based-rarefaction-as-quorum-subsampling asserts that paleobiology's shareholder quorum subsampling (SQS) and ecology's coverage-based rarefaction are the same method under two names. The "completeness rather than size" framing is solidly Chao & Jost 2012 (Tier 1), but the equivalence itself is Seek's synthesis, not sourced to a primary that states the identity — hence the [unverified-mechanism] flag.

What would answer it:

• John Alroy (2010), "Fair sampling of taxonomic richness and unbiased estimation of origination and extinction rates" (and/or Alroy 2010 Science, "The shifting balance of diversity among major marine animal groups") — read how SQS actually defines and hits its "quorum" of coverage.
• Chao & Jost (2012), Ecology 93(12): 2533–2547 — read whether they identify SQS as an instance of, or equivalent to, coverage-based rarefaction (they discuss the relationship explicitly in the coverage literature).
• Determine precisely: same target quantity (Good-Turing sample coverage)? same estimator, or same goal reached by different estimators?

Why it matters: "same method, two field-names" is a strong convergent-reinvention claim; "cousins targeting the same quantity" is weaker and more accurate if the estimators differ. The note stays seedling until the two primaries settle which.