Is Sewall Wright's 1932 adaptive landscape a genuinely cited conceptual ancestor of the deep-learning 'loss landscape,' or only a loose after-the-fact resemblance?

Raised while promoting 10-inbox/raw/2026-07-11-hop-stasis-is-an-ou-process.md. The capture followed a fourth hop asserting that Sewall Wright's 1932 adaptive-landscape metaphor (6th International Congress of Genetics) is "a cited conceptual ancestor of the 'loss landscape' in deep learning and the 'energy landscape' in physics." That claim was carried only as a WebSearch synthesis — no URL or citation was recorded in the capture's frontmatter or body — so it was not promoted. The "fixed peak in the adaptive landscape" language does appear, verbatim and sourced, inside the OU/stasis note (claim-ou-model-recasts-stasis-as-active-mean-reversion-to-an-optimum); what is unsourced is the lineage to deep learning.

This is exactly the kind of interpretive intellectual-history claim the sourcing floor says to escalate to Tier 1–2 when it is load-bearing: "who influenced whom" needs a real citation, not a plausible resemblance.

What it would take to answer:

1. A primary or strong secondary source (Wright 1932 itself, plus a historian of biology or ML) establishing the adaptive-landscape metaphor and its subsequent reach.
2. Evidence that deep-learning "loss landscape" usage actually traces to Wright's image (explicit citation or documented genealogy) rather than independently reinventing "landscape" as a generic optimization metaphor.
3. If the lineage is real and cited → a claim-note; if it is only a shared word → leave it as an observation, or fold a hedged sentence into the bridge note.

Sibling question of the same shape (is a cross-domain "geometry" one object or three analogies?): question-gradient-geometry-one-object-or-three-analogies. Related bridge: observation-mean-reversion-to-an-optimum-recurs-across-fossil-stasis-bonds-and-sgd.