---
slug: before-the-rabbits
passed: 2026-10-14
by: the assay line (research/assay-line/cited-1014b/), Codex fixer directed by claude-assaying-boyle-1014; source record by Codex, checked by Codex
checked: 114
confirmed: 96
wrong: 17
unverifiable: 0
observed: 0
stale: 1
---

This was the directed correction pass on before-the-rabbits at f5e5f84f34: the fixer re-read the evidence for all 18 triage items, corrected 12 WRONG claims and one STALE metadata date, and left five listed MINOR claims unchanged. The record also preserves the 96 CONFIRMED claims and evidence notes from the checkers' re-reads in research/assay-line/cited-1014b/before-the-rabbits/N2-codex.md; their notes describe those checker reads and recreations, including references to their scratch evidence. The five MINOR claims count in wrong for the gate, giving 17. Literal \u2014 in retained quotations represents the original punctuation, not a new punctuation claim.

Repair review on 2026-10-14 verified all eight dated corrections. X16 and X17 remain open for unannotated copies in There, Here, outside this layer's edit scope. Their local corrections stand; board note IDs are pending.

## Claims

- MINOR | X1: "a long held twice as long." | git show f5e5f84f34:public/strata/before-the-rabbits/index.html | Re-read tone and playRhythm: BEAT is 0.20; short and long envelopes are 0.18 and 0.38 seconds, while successive onsets advance by 0.20 and 0.40 seconds. The metrical ratio is 1:2; the duration description blurs envelope and slot. Listed at tier C as directed.
- MINOR | X2: "a long lasts exactly twice a short" | git show f5e5f84f34:public/strata/before-the-rabbits/index.html | The caption says exactly twice, but playRhythm uses BEAT * 0.9 and BEAT * 1.9 for envelope lengths. The onset slots have the exact 1:2 ratio. Same precision issue as X1; listed at tier C as directed.
- WRONG | X3: "trans. H. D. Velankar, via P. Singh (1985)" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | Re-read Singh p. 232 footnote 1 and p. 233: the English translations are Singh's; his Virahāṅka passage translates Velankar's Sanskrit version. Credit corrected without erasing the intermediate Sanskrit translation.
- WRONG | X4: "Virahāṅka's own book is lost." | https://jainqq.org/booktext/Vruttajatisamucchaya/023458 | Re-read Velankar, Introduction xxvii, paragraph 21: text and commentary are catalogued separately and copied in succession. Introduction xxix, paragraph 23 records his earlier publication of the text alone. The book survives.
- WRONG | X5: "We have his rule because a later commentator, Gopāla (writing before 1135), quoted it" | https://jainqq.org/booktext/Vruttajatisamucchaya/023458 | Re-read Velankar, Introduction xxvii and p. 101, verse 6.49 and footnote 3. The edition prints the rule in the text alongside commentary; it is not solely a quotation rescuing a lost book. Gopāla's numerical commentary is retained.
- WRONG | X6: "…three happens, five happens, eight is obtained, thirteen, twenty-one… the process should be followed in all mātrā-vṛttas." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | Visually re-read Singh p. 234. The original includes thirteen happens, not merely thirteen, with explanatory material between the selected results. The shortened excerpt now restores the missing word and marks every omission.
- WRONG | X7: "The sum of the last and the last-but-one numbers is the number of the mātrā-vṛtta coming next." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | Visually re-read Singh p. 234. Restored Sum of the last and the last but one numbers [of variations] is [that] of the mātrā-vṛtta coming next. The accompanying numerical quotation also uses an explicit opening omission and the source punctuation.
- WRONG | X8: "trans. H. D. Velankar, via P. Singh (1985)" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | Re-read Singh p. 232 footnote 1 and p. 234: Singh provides the English, citing Velankar 1961, p. 239 as the edition source. The credit now separates translator from editor.
- MINOR | X9: "The monthly tally runs 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13…" | https://www.math.stonybrook.edu/~tony/archive/118s13/fibonacci.html | Re-read the Latin passage, translation and margin: the initial pair breeds during the first counted month, giving 2 then 3 pairs. The page's 1,1,2,3 sequence is valid for a newborn starting pair, but that convention is implicit. Listed MINOR at tier C as directed.
- WRONG | X10: "Four hands, four centuries, all before the rabbits." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf; https://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/Algorithms_in_Ancient_India/Material/Pingala.pdf | Re-read Shah p. 1, which places Pingala in the second century BCE, and Singh p. 234, which dates Hemacandra's work around 1150. The preceding four-name list includes Pingala. Removed the false four-century span without assigning a precise span or a new Pingala date.
- MINOR | X11: "prosodists' convention F(1)=F(2)=1" | git show f5e5f84f34:research/before-the-rabbits/verify.mjs; https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | Re-read verify.mjs: F = [0n, 1n, 1n] and count[n] = F[n+1] are mathematically correct. Singh p. 234 supplies counts starting 1,2,3,5, not that modern F-indexing convention. The name is imprecise; listed at tier C as directed.
- WRONG | X12: "2nd-century-CE Patañjali" | https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/A_History_Of_Ancient_Sanskrit_Literature_%28IA_in.ernet.dli.2015.513587%29.pdf | Visually re-read Müller p. 125, scan page n141. His account places circulation of Patañjali's grammatical commentary in the first half of the first century CE, contradicting the second-century-CE label. Removed the date, retaining the qualified identification and the grammarian description; no precise replacement date inferred.
- WRONG | X13: "His book is lost; the rule reaches us only because Gopāla later quoted it." | https://jainqq.org/booktext/Vruttajatisamucchaya/023458 | Re-read Velankar, Introduction xxvii and p. 101. The timeline repeats X4/X5: the text and commentary survive, and verse 6.49 is printed in the text. Both lost-book and exclusive-transmission clauses are corrected.
- WRONG | X14: "the sum of the last and the last-but-one is the next." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | Visually re-read Singh p. 234. The abbreviated timeline sentence was a paraphrase presented as a quotation. It now matches the full rule quoted in the page body, with Singh's bracketed words.
- MINOR | X15: "The pair-counts run 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13." | https://www.math.stonybrook.edu/~tony/archive/118s13/fibonacci.html | Re-read the same original rabbit passage as X9. Its marginal tally has one initial 1 and then 2,3,5; the timeline silently uses the valid modern newborn-pair convention. Listed MINOR at tier C as directed.
- WRONG | X16: "The ratio that page studies is the limit of the sequence this page builds." | https://oeis.org/A001622 | Re-read OEIS A001622, Beedassy's 2005 comment, which identifies F(n+1)/F(n) as convergents. The positive integer counts continue increasing by the preceding count and are unbounded. Corrected the relation to successive-count ratios.
- WRONG | X17: "a Bronze Age script is cracked from internal structure before any sign's sound is known;" | https://www.cai.cam.ac.uk/news/deciphering-linear-b-caian-tells-story-3000-year-old-linguistic-mystery | Re-read the Cambridge account: Kober identifies structure, Ventris matches signs to syllables using place names, then the Greek reading emerges. Read the linked layer's grid and place-name assignments. The relation now describes structure and sound assignments as enabling decipherment.
- STALE | X18: ""dateModified":"2026-06-19"" | git show f5e5f84f34:public/strata/before-the-rabbits/index.html | Re-read the pinned JSON-LD and git show 2e60bcb5dd1 for this HTML: the October 1 og:image:alt edit postdates dateModified 2026-06-19. Updated dateModified to this correction date, 2026-10-14, preserving datePublished. The explicit metadata exception requires no Updated line.

- CONFIRMED | "born from a thirteenth-century puzzle about breeding rabbits." | https://www.math.stonybrook.edu/~tony/archive/118s13/fibonacci.html | [rabbits-century] The primary-text translator introduces it as "Fibonacci's 1202 text". MacTutor independently dates Liber abaci to 1202. This confirms the work/date, not the claim that Indian priority is absent.
- CONFIRMED | "But Indian poets had counted them five hundred years earlier \u2014 not in rabbits, in syllables: the number of ways to fill a line of verse with shorts and longs." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [five-hundred] Singh p. 233: "between the sixth and eighth centuries". Roughly five centuries before 1202 is a reasonable summary of this broad interval, not a securely dated year.
- CONFIRMED | "In the old Indian metres counted by duration (mātrā-vṛtta, "moraic verse"), every syllable is one of two lengths." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [metre-definition] Singh pp. 230-234: "single mātrā", "laghu (light)", "two morae", "guru (heavy)"; fixed-mora metres and the historical authors' counting rules are discussed explicitly. The record's definition excerpt alone does not establish every historical clause; the surrounding pages do.
- CONFIRMED | "A short syllable \u2014 laghu, "light" \u2014 lasts one beat." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [laghu] Singh pp. 230-234: "single mātrā", "laghu (light)", "two morae", "guru (heavy)"; fixed-mora metres and the historical authors' counting rules are discussed explicitly. The record's definition excerpt alone does not establish every historical clause; the surrounding pages do.
- CONFIRMED | "A long syllable \u2014 guru, "heavy" \u2014 lasts two." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [guru] Singh pp. 230-234: "single mātrā", "laghu (light)", "two morae", "guru (heavy)"; fixed-mora metres and the historical authors' counting rules are discussed explicitly. The record's definition excerpt alone does not establish every historical clause; the surrounding pages do.
- CONFIRMED | "A line of a fixed duration can be filled many ways, and the poets asked the obvious question: how many?" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [poets-question] Singh pp. 230-234: "single mātrā", "laghu (light)", "two morae", "guru (heavy)"; fixed-mora metres and the historical authors' counting rules are discussed explicitly. The record's definition excerpt alone does not establish every historical clause; the surrounding pages do.
- CONFIRMED | "One beat: just • \u2014 one way. Two beats: •• or ▬ \u2014 two ways. Three: three ways. Four: five. Five: eight." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [small-counts] Singh p. 232: "1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13" for successive mora totals. Independently enumerated all binary syllable words with the requisite weight; see evidence/runtime.json.
- CONFIRMED | "The counts are 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55… \u2014 each the sum of the two before it." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [sequence-recurrence] Singh p. 233 calls Virahanka the "first authority" who "explicitly gave the rule". Read p. 232 too: Pingala's earlier evidence is interpreted through later commentators. Shah supports the separate earlier binomial algorithms.
- CONFIRMED | "These are the Fibonacci numbers, arriving by a door that has nothing to do with rabbits." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [fibonacci-identification] Singh p. 232: "1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13" for successive mora totals. Independently enumerated all binary syllable words with the requisite weight; see evidence/runtime.json.
- CONFIRMED | "The poets did not count by brute force forever. They found the reason \u2014 and the reason is a single, clean observation you can watch the loom make." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [poets-rule] Singh p. 233 calls Virahanka the "first authority" who "explicitly gave the rule". Read p. 232 too: Pingala's earlier evidence is interpreted through later commentators. Shah supports the separate earlier binomial algorithms.
- CONFIRMED | "Its last syllable is either short or long, and that is the whole proof:" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [last-syllable] Singh p. 231 constructs the expansion from "(n - 2) morae" before a guru and "(n - 1) morae" before a laghu. Stripping the final syllable gives the inverse bijections. Recreated independently for n=0..16.
- CONFIRMED | "If it ends in a short (one beat), strip that syllable off and what remains is some rhythm filling n−1 beats \u2014 any of them, each exactly once." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [short-bijection] Singh p. 231 constructs the expansion from "(n - 2) morae" before a guru and "(n - 1) morae" before a laghu. Stripping the final syllable gives the inverse bijections. Recreated independently for n=0..16.
- CONFIRMED | "If it ends in a long (two beats), strip it off and what remains fills n−2 beats \u2014 again, any of them, exactly once." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [long-bijection] Singh p. 231 constructs the expansion from "(n - 2) morae" before a guru and "(n - 1) morae" before a laghu. Stripping the final syllable gives the inverse bijections. Recreated independently for n=0..16.
- CONFIRMED | "Every rhythm falls into exactly one of those two buckets, and nothing is left out." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [partition-exhaustive] Singh p. 231 constructs the expansion from "(n - 2) morae" before a guru and "(n - 1) morae" before a laghu. Stripping the final syllable gives the inverse bijections. Recreated independently for n=0..16.
- CONFIRMED | "So the number filling n beats is the number filling n−1 plus the number filling n−2." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [count-recurrence] Singh p. 233 calls Virahanka the "first authority" who "explicitly gave the rule". Read p. 232 too: Pingala's earlier evidence is interpreted through later commentators. Shah supports the separate earlier binomial algorithms.
- CONFIRMED | "This is exactly the rule the prosodist Virahāṅka set down, in his Prākrit treatise on metre, the Vṛttajātisamuccaya," | https://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/Algorithms_in_Ancient_India/Material/Pingala.pdf | [virahanka-work] Shah p. 3: "Vṛttajātisamuccaya, which was composed by Virahāṅka in Prākṛta". Singh p. 233 and Velankar's edition supply the actual recurrence; the excerpt about Shah translating only a Sanskrit version does not mean the original is lost.
- CONFIRMED | "somewhere between the sixth and eighth centuries" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [virahanka-date] Singh p. 233: "between the sixth and eighth centuries". Roughly five centuries before 1202 is a reasonable summary of this broad interval, not a securely dated year.
- CONFIRMED | "the first surviving text to state it explicitly:" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [first-surviving] Singh p. 233 calls Virahanka the "first authority" who "explicitly gave the rule". Read p. 232 too: Pingala's earlier evidence is interpreted through later commentators. Shah supports the separate earlier binomial algorithms.
- CONFIRMED | "The variations of two earlier metres being mixed, the number is obtained. That is a direction for knowing the number of variations of the next mātrā-vṛtta." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [virahanka-quotation] Singh p. 233 gives the same complete wording apart from "meters"/"metres" and editorial parentheses around "of variations" and "-vṛtta". No change of mathematical meaning; spelling/parenthesis normalization is not reported as a factual defect. The separate translator-credit claim is WRONG.
- CONFIRMED | "Gopāla (writing before 1135)" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [gopala-date] Singh p. 234: "handwritten between A.D. 1133 and 1135"; Velankar p. xxvii explains the two manuscript dates. "Before 1135" is the supported bound, not a known year of composition.
- CONFIRMED | "and went further, working the numbers out one by one:" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [gopala-enumerates] Singh pp. 233-234: "Gopāla is the first author on metric who specifically mentions the numbers"; the succeeding passage enumerates 3,5,8,13,21 using 1 and 2 as the bases.
- CONFIRMED | "He is the first author known to write the sequence down as a sequence." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [gopala-first] Singh pp. 233-234: "Gopāla is the first author on metric who specifically mentions the numbers"; the succeeding passage enumerates 3,5,8,13,21 using 1 and 2 as the bases.
- CONFIRMED | "There is an older Indian instrument still, and the Fibonacci numbers are hiding along its diagonals \u2014 which is exactly why the attribution is so easy to get wrong." | https://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/Algorithms_in_Ancient_India/Material/Pingala.pdf | [older-triangle] Read Shah pp. 1-7 and 12-13, not only the supplied snippet. His abstract says the construction "can still be traced to Piṅgala"; pp. 2-3 distinguish Pingala's algorithms, Virahanka's construction and Halayudha's c. 950 commentary. The diagram is the same binomial array. The roughly six-century comparison with Pascal is approximate and is not a date for Pingala himself.
- CONFIRMED | "Centuries before Virahāṅka, Pingala \u2014 author of the Chandaḥśāstra, the founding text of Sanskrit prosody, of uncertain date (anywhere from the last few centuries BCE to perhaps the early centuries CE) \u2014 worked on the other kind of metre, counted by number of syllables rather than duration." | https://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/Algorithms_in_Ancient_India/Material/Pingala.pdf | [pingala-author-date] Read Shah pp. 1-7 and 12-13, not only the supplied snippet. His abstract says the construction "can still be traced to Piṅgala"; pp. 2-3 distinguish Pingala's algorithms, Virahanka's construction and Halayudha's c. 950 commentary. The diagram is the same binomial array. The roughly six-century comparison with Pascal is approximate and is not a date for Pingala himself.
- CONFIRMED | "His tradition tabulated how many k-of-n patterns exist: how many lines of n syllables carry exactly k heavy ones." | https://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/Algorithms_in_Ancient_India/Material/Pingala.pdf | [pingala-tabulation] Read Shah pp. 1-7 and 12-13, not only the supplied snippet. His abstract says the construction "can still be traced to Piṅgala"; pp. 2-3 distinguish Pingala's algorithms, Virahanka's construction and Halayudha's c. 950 commentary. The diagram is the same binomial array. The roughly six-century comparison with Pascal is approximate and is not a date for Pingala himself.
- CONFIRMED | "That table is the array later named the meru-prastāra, the “staircase of Mount Meru”" | https://www.vivekgoyal.org/documents/Varshney_Potentials2008.pdf | [meru-name] Varshney and Goyal, IEEE Potentials p. 30: "may be translated as the staircase of Mount Meru" and "also known as Pascal’s triangle". Read the actual PDF; no attribution to an ancient English phrase is implied.
- CONFIRMED | "and it is, cell for cell, Pascal's triangle, six hundred years before Pascal." | https://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/Algorithms_in_Ancient_India/Material/Pingala.pdf | [triangle-six-hundred] Read Shah pp. 1-7 and 12-13, not only the supplied snippet. His abstract says the construction "can still be traced to Piṅgala"; pp. 2-3 distinguish Pingala's algorithms, Virahanka's construction and Halayudha's c. 950 commentary. The diagram is the same binomial array. The roughly six-century comparison with Pascal is approximate and is not a date for Pingala himself.
- CONFIRMED | "A moraic line of n beats with exactly k long syllables has n−2k shorts, so n−k syllables in all, and the only freedom is which of them are the longs: that count is the binomial coefficient C(n−k, k) \u2014 a single entry of the triangle." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [long-count-binomial] Singh pp. 236-237: "numbers of those variations" having successive numbers of gurus, with their sum equal to the total. Independently: k longs leave n-2k shorts, hence n-k positions and C(n-k,k) choices. Runtime enumeration verifies the formula.
- CONFIRMED | "Add up the entries for every possible number of longs and you have all the rhythms of n beats." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [all-long-counts] Singh pp. 236-237: "numbers of those variations" having successive numbers of gurus, with their sum equal to the total. Independently: k longs leave n-2k shorts, hence n-k positions and C(n-k,k) choices. Runtime enumeration verifies the formula.
- CONFIRMED | "They lie along a shallow diagonal \u2014 and the diagonals of Pingala's triangle are the Fibonacci numbers." | https://oeis.org/A000045 | [shallow-diagonal] OEIS A000045: "F(n) is the diagonal sum of the entries in Pascal's triangle". Checked the page's shifted F(n+1) indexing against enumeration.
- CONFIRMED | "So Pingala's combinatorics already contained the Fibonacci numbers \u2014 as a diagonal sum \u2014 without anyone yet reading them off it." | https://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/Algorithms_in_Ancient_India/Material/Pingala.pdf | [implicit-diagonal] Read Shah pp. 1-7 and 12-13, not only the supplied snippet. His abstract says the construction "can still be traced to Piṅgala"; pp. 2-3 distinguish Pingala's algorithms, Virahanka's construction and Halayudha's c. 950 commentary. The diagram is the same binomial array. The roughly six-century comparison with Pascal is approximate and is not a date for Pingala himself.
- CONFIRMED | "He did not state the additive rule." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [pingala-no-rule] Singh p. 233 calls Virahanka the "first authority" who "explicitly gave the rule". Read p. 232 too: Pingala's earlier evidence is interpreted through later commentators. Shah supports the separate earlier binomial algorithms.
- CONFIRMED | "The one phrase sometimes offered as proof \u2014 his cryptic miśrau ca, “and the two are mixed” \u2014 is given its Fibonacci reading by a commentator a thousand years later, not by Pingala." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [mishrau-commentator] Singh p. 232 names "Yādava", a "commentator belonging to the 10th century", and prints "and the two mixed". The page's added copula "are" does not alter this English rendering. The builder log incorrectly names Halayudha for this particular reading, but the page itself leaves the commentator unnamed.
- CONFIRMED | "and the two are mixed" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [mishrau-translation] Singh p. 232 names "Yādava", a "commentator belonging to the 10th century", and prints "and the two mixed". The page's added copula "are" does not alter this English rendering. The builder log incorrectly names Halayudha for this particular reading, but the page itself leaves the commentator unnamed.
- CONFIRMED | "The triangle is his; the diagonal sum is later." | https://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/Algorithms_in_Ancient_India/Material/Pingala.pdf | [triangle-ownership] Read Shah pp. 1-7 and 12-13, not only the supplied snippet. His abstract says the construction "can still be traced to Piṅgala"; pp. 2-3 distinguish Pingala's algorithms, Virahanka's construction and Halayudha's c. 950 commentary. The diagram is the same binomial array. The roughly six-century comparison with Pascal is approximate and is not a date for Pingala himself.
- CONFIRMED | "The triangular array that does tie the binomials to the Fibonacci numbers directly even has a name \u2014 mātrā-meru \u2014 but it appears later still, in the Prākṛta Paiṅgala of about the fourteenth century, and it denotes the array, not the linear sequence." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [matrameru-name-and-date] Singh pp. 234,236-237: "first quarter of the 14th century A.D." and "formation of matta-meru, or mātrā-meru". The object is a two-dimensional arrangement whose rows sum to the sequence, not the linear sequence itself.
- CONFIRMED | "The clearest medieval statement of the rule is Hemacandra's, a Jain polymath writing his Chandonuśāsana around 1150:" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [hemacandra-work] Singh p. 234 calls Hemacandra "one of the greatest Jain writers", names Chandonuśāsana, and dates its composition "between A.D. 1142 and 1158". The comparative adjective about clarity is editorial judgment, not a measurable factual priority.
- CONFIRMED | "Statement \u2014 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, and in this way, afterwards." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [hemacandra-list-quotation] Visually read Singh p. 234: the same words and integers occur. Only punctuation/spacing differs, which is not reported as a factual finding.
- CONFIRMED | "Half a century after Hemacandra, in 1202, Leonardo of Pisa \u2014 Fibonacci \u2014 published the Liber Abaci" | https://www.math.stonybrook.edu/~tony/archive/118s13/fibonacci.html | [fibonacci-publication] The primary-text translator introduces it as "Fibonacci's 1202 text". MacTutor independently dates Liber abaci to 1202. This confirms the work/date, not the claim that Indian priority is absent.
- CONFIRMED | "to show off the new Hindu-Arabic numerals, posed a puzzle:" | https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fibonacci/ | [numerals-purpose] MacTutor: "mainly a book about the use of Arab numerals" and the rabbit problem in its third section. The record's autobiographical excerpt alone is too narrow for purpose, but the full biography supports the connection.
- CONFIRMED | "a pair of rabbits breeds a new pair each month from its second month on, none die; how many pairs in a year?" | https://www.math.stonybrook.edu/~tony/archive/118s13/fibonacci.html | [rabbit-problem] Read the full Latin and English passage: a pair reproduces each month and young pairs start in their second month. This is the conventional idealized model. The original initial pair is already reproductive, which matters to the separately flagged tally entries.
- CONFIRMED | "the name “Fibonacci sequence” was coined by Édouard Lucas in the 1870s, six centuries later again." | https://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/software/java/fibonacci/lucas_book_leonard_de_pise.pdf | [lucas-names] Lucas's 1877 volume p. 13 has "Série de Fibonacci". Knuth p. 80 says "Lucas gave the name" and places his work in the 1870s. "c. 1876" is an approximation, not a false exact 1876 publication date.
- CONFIRMED | "The recurrence is documented in India centuries before Fibonacci" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [india-earlier] Singh p. 230: "the sequence was well known in India before Leonardo’s time". The preceding Indian rules establish priority independently of the unknown transmission question.
- CONFIRMED | "But the popular over-correction \u2014 “Pingala discovered the Fibonacci numbers in 200 BCE” \u2014 is its own distortion." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [popular-pingala-correction] Singh p. 233 calls Virahanka the "first authority" who "explicitly gave the rule". Read p. 232 too: Pingala's earlier evidence is interpreted through later commentators. Shah supports the separate earlier binomial algorithms.
- CONFIRMED | "The chain that actually holds is later and more interesting: implicit in the combinatorics of Pingala's triangle; first stated as a rule by Virahāṅka; first enumerated by Gopāla; stated most clearly by Hemacandra." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [priority-chain] Singh pp. 232-234 supports the explicit-rule and enumeration order; Shah separately supports the implicit earlier binomial combinatorics. "Most clearly" is a judgment and is not a numerical historical claim.
- CONFIRMED | "Pingala is undated within centuries;" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [pingala-uncertainty] Singh p. 232 reviews conflicting traditions and dates; Shah chooses the "2nd century B.C.E.". The timeline's open-ended "c. 3rd c. BCE–" fits the page's admitted uncertainty, although its cited abstract alone gives a different point estimate.
- CONFIRMED | "between the sixth and eighth centuries" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [velankar-date-quotation] Singh p. 233: "between the sixth and eighth centuries". Roughly five centuries before 1202 is a reasonable summary of this broad interval, not a securely dated year.
- CONFIRMED | "Gopāla is fixed only as “before 1135” (the date a surviving manuscript of his commentary was copied);" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [gopala-manuscript-date] Singh p. 234: "handwritten between A.D. 1133 and 1135"; Velankar p. xxvii explains the two manuscript dates. "Before 1135" is the supported bound, not a known year of composition.
- CONFIRMED | "Hemacandra's work is c. 1142–1158. We write “c.” and “before” and ranges throughout, and resist every pinned year the internet offers." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [hemacandra-range] Singh p. 234 calls Hemacandra "one of the greatest Jain writers", names Chandonuśāsana, and dates its composition "between A.D. 1142 and 1158". The comparative adjective about clarity is editorial judgment, not a measurable factual priority.
- CONFIRMED | "“First,” here, means first in a surviving text to state the rule explicitly." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [first-definition] Singh p. 233 calls Virahanka the "first authority" who "explicitly gave the rule". Read p. 232 too: Pingala's earlier evidence is interpreted through later commentators. Shah supports the separate earlier binomial algorithms.
- CONFIRMED | "Singh notes earlier implicit traces \u2014 in Bharata's dramaturgy as read by the commentator Abhinavagupta," | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [bharata-traces] Singh p. 233 names "Abhinavagupta" and discusses his reading of Bharata's rule for combining the earlier metres.
- CONFIRMED | "and in the Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [purana-traces] Singh p. 233: "Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇa" has a chapter that "indicates a knowledge" of the numbers; this is framed as implicit evidence, not an earlier explicit numeric list.
- CONFIRMED | "The sequence is sometimes called the Virahāṅka–Fibonacci sequence for exactly this reason;" | https://www.esamskriti.com/essays/pdf/The_Virahaka_Fibonacci_and_Related_Sequ.pdf | [virahanka-fibonacci-name] Kak, p. 1: "known variously as the Virahāṅka-Fibonacci sequence". This supports the existence of the name; it is not independent proof of every historical priority.
- CONFIRMED | "in the OEIS it is A000045, whose notes carry the same history." | https://oeis.org/A000045 | [oeis-citation] OEIS A000045 quotes Knuth on Gopala before 1135 and Hemachandra c. 1150 and the count F(n+1). It also records a different historical interpretation by Goonatilake, so "same history" should not be read as unanimous agreement on every attribution.
- CONFIRMED | "History after P. Singh, Historia Mathematica 12 (1985) 229–244, on Velankar's editions;" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [singh-citation] Read the article title page and page headers: Historia Mathematica 12 (1985), 229-244, Parmanand Singh. Required online tool also returned "DOI MATCH" for 10.1016/0315-0860(85)90021-7.
- CONFIRMED | "recurrence credited by D. E. Knuth, TAOCP Vol. 1, §1.2.8." | https://livres.ycharbi.fr/Livres/ebook%20informatique/Informatique/Histoire%2C%20Histoires/The%20Art%20of%20Computer%20Programming/The%20Art%20of%20Computer%20Programming%2C%20Volume%201%2C%20Fundamental%20Algorithms%20%283rd%20ed%2C%201997%29%20-%20%5BAddison-Wesley%5D%20-%20Donald%20E.%20Knuth.pdf | [knuth-citation] Visually read TAOCP vol. 1, 3rd edition, p. 80, section 1.2.8. It names Gopala and Hemachandra, gives F(n+1), and cites Singh. Knuth does not reproduce the page's abbreviated English quotation word for word; the underlying historical statement is supported.
- CONFIRMED | "Founds Sanskrit prosody." | https://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/Algorithms_in_Ancient_India/Material/Pingala.pdf | [tl-pingala-founds] Read Shah pp. 1-7 and 12-13, not only the supplied snippet. His abstract says the construction "can still be traced to Piṅgala"; pp. 2-3 distinguish Pingala's algorithms, Virahanka's construction and Halayudha's c. 950 commentary. The diagram is the same binomial array. The roughly six-century comparison with Pascal is approximate and is not a date for Pingala himself.
- CONFIRMED | "Enumerates syllable-counted metres as binary patterns of light and heavy, and his tradition tabulates the binomial array (the meru-prastāra = Pascal's triangle)." | https://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/Algorithms_in_Ancient_India/Material/Pingala.pdf | [tl-pingala-binary] Read Shah pp. 1-7 and 12-13, not only the supplied snippet. His abstract says the construction "can still be traced to Piṅgala"; pp. 2-3 distinguish Pingala's algorithms, Virahanka's construction and Halayudha's c. 950 commentary. The diagram is the same binomial array. The roughly six-century comparison with Pascal is approximate and is not a date for Pingala himself.
- CONFIRMED | "The Fibonacci numbers are diagonals of that array \u2014 but Pingala does not state the additive rule." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [tl-pingala-rule] Singh p. 233 calls Virahanka the "first authority" who "explicitly gave the rule". Read p. 232 too: Pingala's earlier evidence is interpreted through later commentators. Shah supports the separate earlier binomial algorithms.
- CONFIRMED | "First surviving text to state the rule explicitly: the count for the next moraic metre is got by ‘mixing’ (adding) the two before." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [tl-virahanka-first] Singh p. 233 calls Virahanka the "first authority" who "explicitly gave the rule". Read p. 232 too: Pingala's earlier evidence is interpreted through later commentators. Shah supports the separate earlier binomial algorithms.
- CONFIRMED | "the count for the next moraic metre is got by ‘mixing’ (adding) the two before." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [tl-mixing] Singh p. 233: "being mixed". The timeline's single-word quotation marks identify the operation; the inflection "mixing" is not a new attributed sentence.
- CONFIRMED | "Velankar places him between the sixth and eighth centuries." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [tl-velankar-dating] Singh p. 233: "between the sixth and eighth centuries". Roughly five centuries before 1202 is a reasonable summary of this broad interval, not a securely dated year.
- CONFIRMED | "First author known to write the numbers out one after another \u2014 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 \u2014 as a running sum." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [tl-gopala-first] Singh pp. 233-234: "Gopāla is the first author on metric who specifically mentions the numbers"; the succeeding passage enumerates 3,5,8,13,21 using 1 and 2 as the bases.
- CONFIRMED | "‘Before 1135’ is fixed by the copying date of a surviving palm-leaf manuscript, not his own date, which is earlier." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [tl-gopala-manuscript] Singh p. 234: "handwritten between A.D. 1133 and 1135"; Velankar p. xxvii explains the two manuscript dates. "Before 1135" is the supported bound, not a known year of composition.
- CONFIRMED | "A Jain polymath; the work dates roughly 1142–1158." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [tl-hema-jain] Singh p. 234 calls Hemacandra "one of the greatest Jain writers", names Chandonuśāsana, and dates its composition "between A.D. 1142 and 1158". The comparative adjective about clarity is editorial judgment, not a measurable factual priority.
- CONFIRMED | "This is the statement Donald Knuth cites when he credits the sequence to India." | https://livres.ycharbi.fr/Livres/ebook%20informatique/Informatique/Histoire%2C%20Histoires/The%20Art%20of%20Computer%20Programming/The%20Art%20of%20Computer%20Programming%2C%20Volume%201%2C%20Fundamental%20Algorithms%20%283rd%20ed%2C%201997%29%20-%20%5BAddison-Wesley%5D%20-%20Donald%20E.%20Knuth.pdf | [tl-knuth] Visually read TAOCP vol. 1, 3rd edition, p. 80, section 1.2.8. It names Gopala and Hemachandra, gives F(n+1), and cites Singh. Knuth does not reproduce the page's abbreviated English quotation word for word; the underlying historical statement is supported.
- CONFIRMED | "A later metrics text gives the triangular array its name \u2014 mātrā-meru \u2014 explicitly tying the binomial table to the Fibonacci numbers." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [tl-matra-meru] Singh pp. 234,236-237: "first quarter of the 14th century A.D." and "formation of matta-meru, or mātrā-meru". The object is a two-dimensional arrangement whose rows sum to the sequence, not the linear sequence itself.
- CONFIRMED | "Leonardo of Pisa, showing off Hindu-Arabic numerals, poses the rabbit-breeding problem." | https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Fibonacci/ | [tl-fibonacci-numerals] MacTutor: "mainly a book about the use of Arab numerals" and the rabbit problem in its third section. The record's autobiographical excerpt alone is too narrow for purpose, but the full biography supports the connection.
- CONFIRMED | "Studying the Liber Abaci, Lucas calls it the ‘série de Fibonacci.’" | https://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/software/java/fibonacci/lucas_book_leonard_de_pise.pdf | [tl-lucas-phrase] Lucas's 1877 volume p. 13 has "Série de Fibonacci". Knuth p. 80 says "Lucas gave the name" and places his work in the 1870s. "c. 1876" is an approximation, not a false exact 1876 publication date.
- CONFIRMED | "The name we all use is younger than the sequence by more than a thousand years." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [tl-name-younger] Singh's sixth-to-eighth-century range and Lucas's 1877 printed use differ by more than 1,000 years even at the late endpoint.
- CONFIRMED | "But Indian poets had counted them five centuries earlier, and by a door that has nothing to do with rabbits:" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [dek-indian-priority] Singh p. 233: "between the sixth and eighth centuries". Roughly five centuries before 1202 is a reasonable summary of this broad interval, not a securely dated year.
- CONFIRMED | "a 1202 puzzle about breeding rabbits." | https://www.math.stonybrook.edu/~tony/archive/118s13/fibonacci.html | [dek-fibonacci-date] The primary-text translator introduces it as "Fibonacci's 1202 text". MacTutor independently dates Liber abaci to 1202. This confirms the work/date, not the claim that Indian priority is absent.
- CONFIRMED | "the number of ways to fill a line of verse with short and long syllables." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [dek-counting] Singh pp. 230-234: "single mātrā", "laghu (light)", "two morae", "guru (heavy)"; fixed-mora metres and the historical authors' counting rules are discussed explicitly. The record's definition excerpt alone does not establish every historical clause; the surrounding pages do.
- CONFIRMED | "A short lasts one beat, a long lasts two; the rhythms that fill a line of n beats number 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13…, each the sum of the two before, because a rhythm ends in either a short (on any line one beat shorter) or a long (on any line two shorter)." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [dek-recurrence] Singh p. 231 constructs the expansion from "(n - 2) morae" before a guru and "(n - 1) morae" before a laghu. Stripping the final syllable gives the inverse bijections. Recreated independently for n=0..16.
- CONFIRMED | "That is exactly the rule Virahāṅka set down between the sixth and eighth centuries, enumerated by Gopāla before 1135, and stated most cleanly by Hemacandra around 1150, all before Leonardo of Pisa." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [dek-chronology] Singh pp. 232-234 supports the explicit-rule and enumeration order; Shah separately supports the implicit earlier binomial combinatorics. "Most clearly" is a judgment and is not a numerical historical claim.
- CONFIRMED | "see the same numbers as the shallow diagonals of Pingala's binomial triangle (the meru-prastāra, Pascal's six centuries early);" | https://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/Algorithms_in_Ancient_India/Material/Pingala.pdf | [dek-pingala-triangle] Read Shah pp. 1-7 and 12-13, not only the supplied snippet. His abstract says the construction "can still be traced to Piṅgala"; pp. 2-3 distinguish Pingala's algorithms, Virahanka's construction and Halayudha's c. 950 commentary. The diagram is the same binomial array. The roughly six-century comparison with Pascal is approximate and is not a date for Pingala himself.
- CONFIRMED | "including the honest other half, that the popular 'Pingala discovered Fibonacci' is itself an over-correction, since Pingala tabulated the triangle but never stated the additive rule." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [dek-no-pingala-rule] Singh p. 233 calls Virahanka the "first authority" who "explicitly gave the rule". Read p. 232 too: Pingala's earlier evidence is interpreted through later commentators. Shah supports the separate earlier binomial algorithms.
- CONFIRMED | "Leonardo of Pisa put them in his *Liber Abaci* of 1202, dressed as a puzzle about how fast rabbits breed." | https://www.math.stonybrook.edu/~tony/archive/118s13/fibonacci.html | [md-leonardo-liber] The primary-text translator introduces it as "Fibonacci's 1202 text". MacTutor independently dates Liber abaci to 1202. This confirms the work/date, not the claim that Indian priority is absent.
- CONFIRMED | "Indian prosodists had already counted these numbers, and counted them for a reason that has nothing to do with rabbits: they are the number of ways to fill a line of metrical verse with **short** syllables (one beat each) and **long** syllables (two)." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [md-metrical-counts] Singh pp. 230-234: "single mātrā", "laghu (light)", "two morae", "guru (heavy)"; fixed-mora metres and the historical authors' counting rules are discussed explicitly. The record's definition excerpt alone does not establish every historical clause; the surrounding pages do.
- CONFIRMED | "Strip the last syllable off any such rhythm and the proof falls out: it ends in a short, sitting on any line one beat shorter, or a long, sitting on any line two shorter \u2014 so the count for *n* beats is the sum of the counts for *n−1* and *n−2*." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [md-proof] Singh p. 231 constructs the expansion from "(n - 2) morae" before a guru and "(n - 1) morae" before a laghu. Stripping the final syllable gives the inverse bijections. Recreated independently for n=0..16.
- CONFIRMED | "That additive rule is stated explicitly by **Virahāṅka** (between the sixth and eighth centuries), enumerated by **Gopāla** (before 1135), and put most cleanly by **Hemacandra** (c. 1150) \u2014 all before 1202." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [md-historical-priority] Singh pp. 232-234 supports the explicit-rule and enumeration order; Shah separately supports the implicit earlier binomial combinatorics. "Most clearly" is a judgment and is not a numerical historical claim.
- CONFIRMED | "Older still, **Pingala**'s tradition tabulated the binomial triangle (the *meru-prastāra*, Pascal's six hundred years early), along whose shallow diagonals these very numbers lie" | https://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/Algorithms_in_Ancient_India/Material/Pingala.pdf | [md-pingala-triangle] Read Shah pp. 1-7 and 12-13, not only the supplied snippet. His abstract says the construction "can still be traced to Piṅgala"; pp. 2-3 distinguish Pingala's algorithms, Virahanka's construction and Halayudha's c. 950 commentary. The diagram is the same binomial array. The roughly six-century comparison with Pascal is approximate and is not a date for Pingala himself.
- CONFIRMED | "though Pingala himself never stated the rule, which is why "Pingala discovered Fibonacci" is its own kind of mistake." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [md-pingala-no-rule] Singh p. 233 calls Virahanka the "first authority" who "explicitly gave the rule". Read p. 232 too: Pingala's earlier evidence is interpreted through later commentators. Shah supports the separate earlier binomial algorithms.
- CONFIRMED | "The Fibonacci numbers were counted in Indian poetry centuries before Fibonacci's rabbits, as the number of ways to fill a line of verse with short and long syllables." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [meta-history] Singh p. 230: "the sequence was well known in India before Leonardo’s time". The preceding Indian rules establish priority independently of the unknown transmission question.
- CONFIRMED | "A short syllable is one beat, a long is two; the rhythms that fill n beats number 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13…" | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [meta-counts] Singh p. 232: "1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13" for successive mora totals. Independently enumerated all binary syllable words with the requisite weight; see evidence/runtime.json.
- CONFIRMED | "The Fibonacci numbers as Indian poets first met them: counting the ways to fill a line of verse with short (one-beat) and long (two-beat) syllables." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [og-history] Singh pp. 230-234: "single mātrā", "laghu (light)", "two morae", "guru (heavy)"; fixed-mora metres and the historical authors' counting rules are discussed explicitly. The record's definition excerpt alone does not establish every historical clause; the surrounding pages do.
- CONFIRMED | "Build the rhythms, hear them, and see the recurrence five centuries before the rabbits." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [og-five-centuries] Singh p. 233: "between the sixth and eighth centuries". Roughly five centuries before 1202 is a reasonable summary of this broad interval, not a securely dated year.
- CONFIRMED | "the golden ratio is the number hardest of all to approximate by fractions" | https://oeis.org/A001622 | [related-golden-hardest] OEIS A001622: "continued fraction convergents F(n+1)/F(n)" and "[1,1,1,1,1,...]". This is the familiar continued-fraction approximation claim, not a literal ranking under every imaginable error metric.
- CONFIRMED | "its continued fraction is nothing but 1s, and the fractions that crawl toward it most slowly are the ratios of consecutive Fibonacci numbers." | https://oeis.org/A001622 | [related-golden-cf] OEIS A001622: "continued fraction convergents F(n+1)/F(n)" and "[1,1,1,1,1,...]". This is the familiar continued-fraction approximation claim, not a literal ranking under every imaginable error metric.
- CONFIRMED | "Here those same numbers arrive as the count of ways to fill a line of verse, centuries before they were named for Fibonacci." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [related-verse-priority] Singh p. 232: "1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13" for successive mora totals. Independently enumerated all binary syllable words with the requisite weight; see evidence/runtime.json.
- CONFIRMED | "That page is a game whose winning positions are governed by the golden ratio (and so by Fibonacci's Zeckendorf representation);" | https://oeis.org/A000201 | [related-game] OEIS A000201 gives "a(n) = floor(n*phi)" and Fibonacci-representation descriptions; read the linked Wythoff context as well as the title. Knuth p. 80 also references Wythoff's game.
- CONFIRMED | "this one is the prosodic counting problem where the numbers were first written down." | https://cs111.byu.edu/archives/sp23/articles/sdarticle.pdf | [related-first-prosody] Singh pp. 233-234: "Gopāla is the first author on metric who specifically mentions the numbers"; the succeeding passage enumerates 3,5,8,13,21 using 1 and 2 as the bases.
- CONFIRMED | "Linear A still silent;" | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annual-of-the-british-school-at-athens/online-collections/linear-b | [related-linear-a] Cambridge's Linear B collection says Linear A and Cretan Hieroglyphic "remain undeciphered".
- CONFIRMED | "That page demotes the centum/satem 'first fork' of Indo-European to a mere areal smudge once Tocharian is found on the wrong side;" | https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/tokol/10 | [related-tocharian] UT Austin: "Tocharian’s linguistic traits undercut the correlation between geography and the centum-satem division". The page's description is a broad summary of this counterexample.
- CONFIRMED | "named by Lucas, c. 1876." | https://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/software/java/fibonacci/lucas_book_leonard_de_pise.pdf | [footer-lucas-date] Lucas's 1877 volume p. 13 has "Série de Fibonacci". Knuth p. 80 says "Lucas gave the name" and places his work in the 1870s. "c. 1876" is an approximation, not a false exact 1876 publication date.
- CONFIRMED | "c. 3rd c. BCE–" | https://sanskrit.uohyd.ac.in/Algorithms_in_Ancient_India/Material/Pingala.pdf | [tl-pingala-date] Singh p. 232 reviews conflicting traditions and dates; Shah chooses the "2nd century B.C.E.". The timeline's open-ended "c. 3rd c. BCE–" fits the page's admitted uncertainty, although its cited abstract alone gives a different point estimate.

## Findings

- [declined] X1: MINOR duration-description precision issue, left unchanged at tier C: the 1:2 onset slots are correct, while the held envelopes last 0.18 and 0.38 seconds, as the triage explains.
- [declined] X2: MINOR wording issue in the audio caption, left unchanged at tier C: exactly applies to the metrical slots, not the 19:9 envelope ratio; same issue as X1.
- [fixed] X3: WRONG English-translator credit in public/strata/before-the-rabbits/index.html:203 now names P. Singh and retains Velankar's intermediate Sanskrit translation. Dated correction mirrored in the markdown body.
- [fixed] X4: WRONG lost-book assertion at public/strata/before-the-rabbits/index.html:204 now says the Vṛttajātisamuccaya survives with the commentary. Shares the dated survival correction with X5/X13.
- [fixed] X5: WRONG exclusive-transmission story at public/strata/before-the-rabbits/index.html:204 now describes Gopāla explaining and enumerating the rule in his commentary. Shares the dated survival correction with X4/X13.
- [fixed] X6: WRONG altered Gopāla quotation at public/strata/before-the-rabbits/index.html:204 now restores the source words and marks each omission. Dated correction mirrored in the markdown body.
- [fixed] X7: WRONG rewritten Hemacandra rule at public/strata/before-the-rabbits/index.html:238 restored from Singh p. 234; source brackets retained. The numerical excerpt has an explicit opening omission. Shares its dated correction with X14.
- [fixed] X8: WRONG English-translator credit at public/strata/before-the-rabbits/index.html:239 now names Singh and identifies Velankar as the edition source. Shares its dated attribution correction with X3.
- [declined] X9: MINOR implicit rabbit initial condition, left unchanged at tier C: the listed sequence is valid for a newborn starting pair, while the original initial pair breeds in the first counted month.
- [fixed] X10: WRONG four-century span at public/strata/before-the-rabbits/index.html:242 removed. No replacement span supplied; uncertain Pingala dating retained. Dated correction mirrored in the markdown body.
- [declined] X11: MINOR historical name for modern Fibonacci indexing, left unchanged at tier C: the index relation itself is correct. The verifier does not claim the historical label in its numerical assertion.
- [fixed] X12: WRONG second-century-CE Patañjali label at public/strata/before-the-rabbits/index.html:453 removed; the grammarian and qualified tradition remain. Dated correction reports exactly what the cited passage supports.
- [fixed] X13: WRONG repeated lost-book and exclusive-transmission story at public/strata/before-the-rabbits/index.html:455 replaced with surviving text and numerical commentary. Shares the dated survival correction with X4/X5.
- [fixed] X14: WRONG paraphrase quoted as Hemacandra at public/strata/before-the-rabbits/index.html:459 replaced with the same source wording as the body quotation. Shares its dated correction with X7.
- [declined] X15: MINOR implicit rabbit initial condition in the timeline, left unchanged at tier C for the same reason as X9; the recurrence and the modern newborn-pair sequence are valid.
- [open note:8f8cc6] X16: WRONG sequence-limit relation at src/content/strata/before-the-rabbits.md:10 is corrected to consecutive-count ratios, with a dated correction on the page and in the markdown. The false sentence remains unannotated in public/strata/there-here/index.html:250 and research/lineage-edge-grammar/page.json:1, in the note from before-the-rabbits to most-irrational. Those copies belong to another layer and are outside this repair's permitted scope; a board note is required.
- [open note:7941eb] X17: WRONG sound-free decipherment relation at src/content/strata/before-the-rabbits.md:14 is corrected to structural analysis and sound assignments enabling decipherment, with a dated correction on the page and in the markdown. The false sentence remains unannotated in public/strata/there-here/index.html:250 and research/lineage-edge-grammar/page.json:1, in the note from before-the-rabbits to the-grid-that-spoke-greek. Those copies belong to another layer and are outside this repair's permitted scope; a board note is required.
- [dated] X18: STALE JSON-LD dateModified at public/strata/before-the-rabbits/index.html:148 changed from 2026-06-19 to 2026-10-14. datePublished remains 2026-06-19. No Updated line under the explicit metadata exception; the Corrected lines date the revision.