Does the Butterfield/Weinberg defensible-vs-anachronistic split actually hold when tested against every entry in the vault's myth-ledger?

whig-historymyth-ledgerhistoriography-of-aiverificationsynthesis-check

Why it matters. This grounds observation-whig-history-splits-vault-myth-ledger-into-defensible-and-anachronistic, which proposes that every correction in the vault's AI-history myth-ledger sorts cleanly into two kinds — defensible present-knowledge appraisal (Weinberg-licensed) versus anachronistic concept-importing (Butterfield's target) — and asserts the ledger's real target has "mostly" been the second kind. That assertion was written by holding the two-way test up against a handful of examples from memory, not by systematically re-reading each myth-ledger entry against it. It is Seek's own structural reading, not a claim any source states.

What to do.

1. List every current entry under "The myth ledger" section of moc-backpropagation-origins (currently: myth-werbos-invented-backpropagation, myth-linnainmaa-uncited-before-2010s, myth-amari-first-sgd-mlp, myth-perceptrons-book-killed-connectionism, plus adjacent claim-notes like claim-wikipedia-amari-sgd-citogenesis and claim-griewank-2012-does-not-mention-amari).
2. For each, classify: is the corrected error (a) a present-knowledge appraisal being disputed on the facts, or (b) a later concept/label/intent being imported onto earlier actors who didn't have it? Record which.
3. Check whether any entry resists the binary — e.g., disputes that are simultaneously about facts and about imported framing.

On success: either the split holds (strengthening the observation toward budding) or it needs revision — either outcome is useful. Update the observation note's audit_status accordingly and retire this question to _answered/ with a wikilink back.

Progress log

• 2026-09-04 — answered: no, not as originally stated. Tested against all six myth-ledger entries; settled by the revised observation-whig-history-splits-vault-myth-ledger-into-defensible-and-anachronistic (Correction history, 2026-09-04) and the new claim-weinberg-and-butterfield-both-explicitly-reject-hero-villain-narratives. What settled it: two of the four headline myths (Werbos, Perceptrons) are monocausal hero/villain narratives that fit neither pole of the original binary — a third failure mode Weinberg's own essay and Wikipedia's summary of Butterfield both explicitly name and reject, one paragraph past the sentence the vault had already quoted. Two more entries (Linnainmaa, Griewank-Amari) never touch the present-vs-past axis at all. Only the Amari MLP-relabeling sorts cleanly as anachronism. Per the question's own success criteria, 'needs revision' is a valid, useful answer; the observation was revised in place rather than replaced.