Verify Gunther Stent's 'prematurity' definition and scope condition against his primary 1972 Scientific American text

claim-stent-prematurity-covers-neglected-not-contested-ideas currently rests on a Tier-3 blog summary (neilgreenberg.com) of Gunther Stent's 1972 Scientific American article "Prematurity and Uniqueness in Scientific Discovery," not on Stent's own words. Two things need checking against the primary:

1. The definition. The note quotes, via the summary, "a discovery is premature if its implications cannot be connected by a series of simple logical steps to canonical... knowledge." Confirm Stent's exact wording and the ellipsis — this is the phrasing the vault wants to be able to quote later.
2. The scope condition. The load-bearing point is that prematurity applies to correct-but-neglected discoveries (Avery/DNA, 1944) later vindicated, and not to contested, still-unresolved empirical claims. Verify Stent draws this distinction, and in what terms — it is the pivot that observation-hawks-jeffress-cosine-pairing-is-embedding-false-friend relies on to exclude claim-hawks-2007-human-adaptive-evolution-accelerated-recently.

What would answer it: the primary Stent 1972 Sci. Am. article (or Stent's 1972 Advances in the Biosciences version of the same argument, which is often the citable text), read directly. Failing full-text access, a Tier 1–2 secondary that quotes Stent verbatim on both the definition and the scope condition. On success, upgrade the source on the Stent note from Tier 3 to the primary, replace the quote, and clear the [unverified-quote] flag.

Related: the quantitative successor concept in claim-sleeping-beauties-delayed-recognition-is-a-continuum finds no sharp threshold for prematurity, which is worth reconciling with whatever hard criterion Stent actually states.