Do the primaries confirm that Stigler credited his Law of Eponymy to Merton (1980) and that Merton credited the Matthew Effect to Zuckerman (1968)?

Why it matters. This gates claim-credit-detectors-are-themselves-misattributed, whose whole force is that both labels for misattributed credit are themselves cases of it. Both facts currently rest only on Tier-4 encyclopedia sources. These are historical claims that are surprising and self-referential — exactly the case the sourcing floor says must escalate to Tier 1–2 primaries (00-meta/specs/sources.md). The note stays seedling until the two primaries are read.

What to read.

1. Stephen M. Stigler, "Stigler's Law of Eponymy," in Science and Social Structure: A Festschrift for Robert K. Merton (Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, ser. II, vol. 39, 1980), pp. 147–157. Confirm that Stigler states the law ("no scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer") and explicitly attributes it to Merton — the self-referential move. Still open.
2. Robert K. Merton, "The Matthew Effect in Science," Science 159:56–63 (5 Jan 1968). Confirm the "get more credit than a comparatively unknown researcher" framing, and locate Merton's later statement (e.g. the 1988 "Matthew Effect II" or his collected writings) that the concept was effectively co-authored with Harriet Zuckerman and should have carried her name. RESOLVED 2026-07-12 (headless promotion of 10-inbox/raw/2026-07-11-hop-self-exemplifying-credit-laws.md): Merton's 1988 "The Matthew Effect in Science, II" was fetched directly (source_extract_tls: verified) and supplies the exact quote — "It is now [1973] belatedly evident to me that I drew upon the interview and other materials of the Zuckerman study to such an extent that, clearly, the paper should have appeared under joint authorship." Folded into claim-credit-detectors-are-themselves-misattributed, which is now Tier 1 on this half. The 1968 Science paper's own wording (item 2's original ask) is still unread, but the Zuckerman co-authorship admission — the load-bearing self-reference fact — is confirmed via the primary 1988 follow-up piece, which is enough to close this half of the question.

On success: once item 1 (Stigler) is also confirmed, upgrade the note's remaining source_tier to 1–2, move audit_status off flagged entirely, and retire this question to _answered/ with a wikilink back. If the Stigler primary contradicts the encyclopedia gloss, revise the note rather than promote it.