Do Rosenblatt's own memory-transfer reports confirm that his work refuted the molecular-memory effect?

The claim that Rosenblatt "showed convincingly that the initial reports of larger effects were wrong and that any memory transfer was at most very small" currently rests only on Wikipedia (Tier 3). It is surprising and load-bearing for claim-rosenblatt-helped-refute-memory-transfer-effect, and a surprising/contested historical claim needs a Tier 1–2 primary (00-meta/specs/sources.md, sourcing floor).

To verify — read the primary: Rosenblatt's own DTIC technical report "Studies of Memory Transfer in Rats" (accession AD0656488). Confirm:

1. that his experimental results were negative / near-null;
2. the scale of the experiments (n animals, number of replications) that makes "large-scale" accurate;
3. Rosenblatt's own characterization of the effect size — whether "at most very small" is his framing or a later gloss.

Secondary corroboration to seek: contemporaneous reviews of the memory-transfer controversy (e.g. the 1966 Science multi-lab null-replication letter; McConnell-era retrospectives) that name Rosenblatt's contribution.

Also open (distinct flag): the quantitative scope of the craze — "~200 teams, 247 reports, >$1M 1960s funding" (Larry Stern, APA Monitor 2010, Tier 3) — is an [unverified-quant] figure inherited into claim-rosenblatt-helped-refute-memory-transfer-effect and wants a primary home before any note rests weight on it.

Feeds the nightly topic queue. When answered, discharge the flag on claim-rosenblatt-helped-refute-memory-transfer-effect and retire this note.