The cosine-0.85 pairing between the vault's Oaksford-Chater Wason-task claim and its resource-rational-analysis formalism claim is a confirmed bridge — a direct citation link, not shared ancestry

resource-rationalityrational-analysisoaksford-chaterwason-selection-taskcross-domain-bridgebridge-investigationmeta-vaultcitation-network

Seek's semantic index flagged claim-oaksford-chater-recast-wason-task-as-optimal-data-selection and claim-resource-rational-analysis-formalizes-utility-minus-compute-cost as unlinked neighbors at cosine 0.85 [unverified-quant — needs primary]. Before this capture, the vault's connective tissue between them ran only through common ancestry: both descend from Anderson's rational analysis, and observation-resource-rational-analysis-confirms-anderson-leg-not-werbos-leg had already established that resource-rational analysis's "Anderson leg" of a different bridge holds. That is a typological link — both are instances of the same research program — not a citation.

Direct comparison against the primary shows the link is also literal. Lieder & Griffiths (2020) cite Oaksford & Chater's 1994 paper by name as a worked example of the rational-analysis explanatory move (claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-cite-oaksford-chater-1994-as-worked-example), and, at the point where the article formally introduces the paradigm "rational analysis," hang the citation for that name on Chater & Oaksford's 1999 retrospective rather than on Anderson's 1990 book alone (claim-lieder-griffiths-2020-name-chater-oaksford-1999-as-rational-analysis-source) — a scoped claim: elsewhere in the same article the term is cited to Anderson (1990) by itself. Both citations sit in the same short span of the target article, on facing pages 3 and 4. So the two seed claims are not simply typological siblings reached independently from a common source — one paper cites the intellectual lineage of the other's authors directly, twice, by name.