Pesch & Plail's 2009 and 2012 retellings of Boltyanskii's naming-pressure testimony agree closely — self-consistency across two venues, not independent corroboration

boltyanskiipontryaginpesch-plailrozonoermaximum-principlecredit-attributionsoviet-unionsource-verificationhistory-of-mathematics

Pesch & Plail published a second account of Boltyanskii's naming-pressure testimony three years after their 2009 Control and Cybernetics survey, this time in Documenta Mathematica's Optimization Stories volume. The 2012 version matches the substance of the 2009 account already in this vault almost word for word — Pontryagin "hampered" Boltyanskii's publication and intended to credit it to four authors; Boltyanskii was allowed to publish in 1958 only after agreeing to praise Pontryagin's contribution and to call the result Pontryagin's maximum principle. The only wording differences are "praise" for "appreciate," and the 2012 telling drops the 2009 detail that Boltyanskii also had to cite McShane's needle variations. In exchange, the 2012 telling adds a detail absent from 2009: per Boltyanskii, Rozonoér, a Soviet engineer, was specifically encouraged to publish a 1959 tripartite paper on the maximum principle in Avtomatika i Telemekhanika, to spread Pontryagin's name as discoverer into engineering circles.

This is evidence of the authors' own consistency across two publications in two journals three years apart — not independent corroboration of the underlying 1994 testimony, since both tellings trace to the same two historians and, so far as either paper's own reference list shows, the same source. What it rules out is that Pesch & Plail softened, altered, or walked back the account between 2009 and 2012; what it does not do is confirm the account against Boltyanskii's own words, which this vault still has not read (see question-verify-boltyanskii-1994-primary-naming-pressure-testimony).