Lieder & Griffiths (2020) cite Oaksford & Chater's 1994 optimal-data-selection paper by name as a worked example of how rational analysis explains apparent bias

resource-rationalityrational-analysisoaksford-chaterwason-selection-taskbayesian-cognitioncognitive-sciencecitation-network

In their target article's review of how rational-analysis explanations succeed, Falk Lieder and Thomas L. Griffiths write that such explanations work "by identifying how the environment that people's strategies are adapted to differs from the tasks participants are given in the laboratory," and list worked examples, including "the confirmation bias (Austerweil & Griffiths 2011; Oaksford & Chater 1994)." The paper's own reference list resolves this citation to Oaksford, M. & Chater, N. (1994), "A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection," Psychological Review 101(4):608–31 — the identical paper claim-oaksford-chater-recast-wason-task-as-optimal-data-selection already describes as the source of the expected-information-gain mathematics behind the Wason-task recast.

So the target article that formalizes resource-rational analysis's utility-minus-compute-cost objective (claim-resource-rational-analysis-formalizes-utility-minus-compute-cost) names, by author and year, the exact paper that recast the Wason selection task as optimal data selection — as one of its own four supporting examples of the rational-analysis explanatory move, alongside misperceptions of randomness, the gambler's fallacy, and Hahn & Oaksford (2007) on informal argumentation. This is a direct citation link between two independently seeded vault claims, not a shared-ancestor resemblance picked up by coincidence.