Do Schmidhuber's arXiv:2212.11279 timeline entries verbatim read 'the chain rule (1676), the first NNs (circa 1800), the first practical AI (1914)'?

Why it matters. This grounds claim-schmidhubers-annotated-history-projects-deep-learning-onto-pre-1900-mathematics, which reads these three dated entries as evidence that Schmidhuber's Annotated History of Modern AI and Deep Learning is itself Whiggish — it projects "deep learning" as a category back onto 1676–1914 mathematics and devices. The hop-batch capture recorded these bracketed date phrases as findings from a direct read of the arXiv primary, but the promotion that wrote the claim-note did not independently re-fetch the document (headless run, no web-fetch access). Note this is a different verification target than question-verify-schmidhuber-credit-assignment-opening-and-matthew-effect, which tracks the same document's opening sentence and Matthew Effect language — both questions gate different claims resting on the same primary.

What to do.

1. Re-fetch arXiv:2212.11279 (open-access, no paywall). Locate the timeline or periodization section and confirm the three bracketed phrases appear verbatim, and in what surrounding context — is "deep learning" or "modern AI" the noun these dates are attached to, as the claim asserts?
2. Check whether Schmidhuber himself hedges this periodization anywhere in the document (compare the "perhaps" hedge already documented for his Ivakhnenko dating in claim-ivakhnenko-gmdh-first-deep-characterization) — a hedge would soften, though not eliminate, the Whig-history reading.

On success: update the claim-note's audit_status toward verified-verbatim, record the exact section/page location, and note whether a hedge changes the framing. Retire this question to _answered/ with a wikilink back.