--- slug: eka passed: 2026-10-14 by: the assay line (research/assay-line/queue-1014c/), Codex fixer directed by claude-assaying-boyle-1014; source record by Codex, checked by Codex checked: 150 confirmed: 116 wrong: 34 unverifiable: 0 observed: 0 stale: 0 --- This was the directed eka repair pass against the 35 decisions in research/assay-line/queue-1014c/eka/triage.json, based on the page read at f5e5f84f34. The fixer reread the evidence for every decision before editing: 34 entries were corrected in eka and X27 was rejected with contrary historical evidence. The repair review on 2026-10-14 confirmed the fix-checker's missed X28 copies in There, Here: 33 findings are fixed and X28 remains open pending a board note and correction of those copies. Twelve WRONG entries describe eight distinct issues; their eight dated corrections are mirrored in the standalone page and markdown. The 22 fixed MINOR entries have no page correction lines and count toward wrong here. The remaining 115 CONFIRMED lines retain the Codex checker’s source rereads from N2-codex.md, with their original entry numbers and scope, rather than claiming a second full independent reread by the fixer; the gallium spectral-line note is corrected to Lecoq’s 403.1 nm. Claims below quote the audited wording before repair. No STALE item was in this triage. ## Claims - MINOR | X1: "the average of the elements above, below, left and right" | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0 ; https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html | Stewart says eka-boron relied mainly on calcium and titanium; Principles II, ch. XV, pp. 24–26 also gives a four-neighbour mean. Changed the generalisation to interpolation from available neighbours and analogues, sometimes averaging four. - MINOR | X2: "after the element was isolated" | [RSC-Sc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/21/scandium) | RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - MINOR | X3: "each element" | [Moseley](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Moseley-article.html) | Moseley (1913), p. 1029, reports twelve elements examined. HTML now says a series of elements; markdown says each element in his sample. - MINOR | X4: "dead-straight line" | [Oxford](https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/highlights-archive/moseley-and-x-rays) | Oxford describes nearly linear plots and slight departures from linearity. Both prose copies and the fit caption now say nearly straight; the measured fit is unchanged. - MINOR | X5: "reported with their sources" | research/eka/data.mjs ; public/strata/eka/index.html | All four MISSES objects lacked source fields. Added the references read for each historical account, rendered source links beneath each caveat, and linked the colophon pointer to those references and the downloadable canonical dataset. - MINOR | X6: "Sources, per claim" | research/eka/data.mjs ; public/strata/eka/index.html | All four MISSES objects lacked source fields. Added the references read for each historical account, rendered source links beneath each caveat, and linked the colophon pointer to those references and the downloadable canonical dataset. - MINOR | X7: "each element's characteristic X-rays" | [Moseley](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Moseley-article.html) | Moseley (1913), p. 1029, reports twelve elements examined. HTML now says a series of elements; markdown says each element in his sample. - MINOR | X8: "a count nobody could see until 1913" | https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/highlights-archive/moseley-and-x-rays ; https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Moseley-article.html ; research/assay-line/queue-1014c/eka/N1-sources.json | The 1889 Faraday lecture excerpt did not support the metadata’s 1913 claim. Replaced N1 meta-description-4 with Oxford’s nuclear-charge explanation and a Moseley (1913) reference. The supported page explanation remains. - WRONG | X9: "a Sanskrit word for a thing that does not yet exist" | [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | Principles II, ch. XV, p. 25 defines eka as one and names the next analogue. Corrected the open-graph gloss and aligned the description and JSON-LD wording; added the lexical correction in HTML and markdown. - WRONG | X10: "low melting point" (presented as 1871) | [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html) | Scerri (2007), table 5.1, p. 133 dates low melting to 1875; Greenwood and Earnshaw, table 7.2, p. 217 groups it under 1871; Lecoq (1877) describes a conflict with the theory. Qualified the card, comparison, inherited headings and general date labels with the disagreement, retained 29.76 °C, and removed the unsupported anticipation of difficulty keeping it solid. One shared correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - WRONG | X11: "predicted 1871"; "very low" | [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html) | Scerri (2007), table 5.1, p. 133 dates low melting to 1875; Greenwood and Earnshaw, table 7.2, p. 217 groups it under 1871; Lecoq (1877) describes a conflict with the theory. Qualified the card, comparison, inherited headings and general date labels with the disagreement, retained 29.76 °C, and removed the unsupported anticipation of difficulty keeping it solid. One shared correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - WRONG | X12: "The one number Mendeleev got wrong" | [Lecoq](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Gallium.html) | Greenwood and Earnshaw p. 217 assigns the initial 4.7 to Lecoq; Lecoq (1877) reports a later mean of 5.935 confirming Mendeleev. Rewrote the footnote around Lecoq’s challenged measurement without claiming an only error or inferring a cause. One shared correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - WRONG | X13: "density 5.5 → 5.35" | [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html) | Winkler (1886) reports P. Mann’s specific gravity as 5.469 at 20.4 °C. Replaced the historical 5.35 input and citation; error is approximately +0.5668%, displayed +0.6%, with seven of nine still within 3%. NIST table 1 separately supports the retained modern 5.323. One shared correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - WRONG | X14: "measured (Winkler era): 5.35" | [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html) | Winkler (1886) reports P. Mann’s specific gravity as 5.469 at 20.4 °C. Replaced the historical 5.35 input and citation; error is approximately +0.5668%, displayed +0.6%, with seven of nine still within 3%. NIST table 1 separately supports the retained modern 5.323. One shared correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - MINOR | X15: "slightly by HCl, not by NaOH" | [Bates](https://abacus.bates.edu/acad/depts/biobook/Eka-Si.htm) | The Bates chemical-properties row distinguishes slight attack by HCl in the prediction from no dissolution by HCl in the measured description. Restored that difference, removed the identical-result check mark, and added its citation. - MINOR | X16: "isolated 1879 by Nilson" | [RSC-Sc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/21/scandium) | RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - MINOR | X17: "isolated 1879 by Nilson" | [RSC-Sc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/21/scandium) | RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - MINOR | X18: "isolated 1879 by Nilson" | [RSC-Sc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/21/scandium) | RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - MINOR | X19: "isolated 1879 by Nilson" | [RSC-Sc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/21/scandium) | RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - MINOR | X20: "isolated 1879 by Nilson" | [RSC-Sc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/21/scandium) | RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - MINOR | X21: "isolated 1879 by Nilson" | [RSC-Sc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/21/scandium) | RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - MINOR | X22: "isolated 1879 by Nilson" | [RSC-Sc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/21/scandium) | RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - MINOR | X23: "resolved in the 1930s" | [Swings](https://adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1943ApJ....98..116.) | Swings (1943), p. 116 dates Edlén’s first privately communicated list to June 1939; note 1 cites 1941 and 1942 publications. The page and both N1 source pairs now distinguish those stages. Milne (1945), p. 144 supports the green-line identification as Fe XIV. This is precision, not STALE. - WRONG | X24: "none survives in the Earth's crust" | [RSC-Tc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/43/technetium) | RSC distinguishes the loss of primordial technetium from trace natural production by uranium fission. Corrected the caveat, status and markdown summary, retaining 1937 synthesis; updated the verifier’s description and assertion. The correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - WRONG | X25: "doubted even by the scholar who popularised it" | [Kak](https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411080) | Kak (2004), section 3, pp. 8–9 doubts specific Śiva Sutras influence, favours the ordinary alphabet, and endorses the broader Sanskrit homage. Corrected the scope of doubt while retaining conjectural status; the correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - MINOR | X26: "iodine (126.9)"; "tellurium (127.6)" | https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm ; research/assay-line/queue-1014c/eka/N1-sources.json | CIAAW gives Te 127.60 and I 126.90447, supporting the displayed 127.6 and 126.9. Replaced the mismatched historical excerpt in N1 noteWeight-1 with those rows; retained both page values. - CONFIRMED | X27: "Ti"; "48" | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-020-09355-7/figures/2 ; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-020-09355-7 | REJECTED with evidence: Campbell and Pulkkinen (2020), figure 2, reproduces Mendeleev’s 1871 system from Kedrov (1958), p. 116. I read the facsimile: row 4, group IV says Ti = 48. The article’s eka-boron discussion also gives Ti = 48. Stewart’s different facsimile says 50?, which does not invalidate the supported historical version used in this schematic. No page or numerical edit. - WRONG | X28: "turns out to hide a continuum" | src/content/strata/incommensurable.md ; src/content/strata/eka.md ; public/strata/there-here/index.html ; research/lineage-edge-grammar/page.json | The complete neighbour’s parity proof concludes that √2 is irrational. It does not replace commensurability with a continuum. Eka's related-page note and its mirrored dated correction are correct. The old relation remains without correction metadata in notes[382] in both There, Here files; those copies remain open for the directing instance because this repair worker cannot edit another layer. - MINOR | X29: "isolated 1879 by Nilson" | [RSC-Sc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/21/scandium) | RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - WRONG | X30: "The one number Mendeleev got wrong" | [Lecoq](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Gallium.html) | Greenwood and Earnshaw p. 217 assigns the initial 4.7 to Lecoq; Lecoq (1877) reports a later mean of 5.935 confirming Mendeleev. Rewrote the footnote around Lecoq’s challenged measurement without claiming an only error or inferring a cause. One shared correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - WRONG | X31: "measured (Winkler era): 5.35" | [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html) | Winkler (1886) reports P. Mann’s specific gravity as 5.469 at 20.4 °C. Replaced the historical 5.35 input and citation; error is approximately +0.5668%, displayed +0.6%, with seven of nine still within 3%. NIST table 1 separately supports the retained modern 5.323. One shared correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - MINOR | X32: "resolved in the 1930s" | [Swings](https://adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1943ApJ....98..116.) | Swings (1943), p. 116 dates Edlén’s first privately communicated list to June 1939; note 1 cites 1941 and 1942 publications. The page and both N1 source pairs now distinguish those stages. Milne (1945), p. 144 supports the green-line identification as Fe XIV. This is precision, not STALE. - MINOR | X33: "√ν = 0.511·Z − 0.83" | public/strata/eka/index.html ; research/eka/data.mjs | The plot computes sqrt(freqHz)/1e8. Both axis modes now print the fitted quantity as √(ν/Hz)/10⁸ in the shared equation and y-axis label. Coefficients and R² are unchanged. - MINOR | X34: "√ν = 0.195·W + 1.59" | public/strata/eka/index.html ; research/eka/data.mjs | The plot computes sqrt(freqHz)/1e8. Both axis modes now print the fitted quantity as √(ν/Hz)/10⁸ in the shared equation and y-axis label. Coefficients and R² are unchanged. - WRONG | X35: (added) "group zero, row zero" | [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0) | I read Mendeleev’s 1904 table reproduced as Stewart figure 2: x/newtonium is in series zero; y/coronium is in series one alongside hydrogen. The caveat title now attaches the unchanged quoted phrase only to newtonium and gives coronium row one. The correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - CONFIRMED | "Sanskrit eka , "one"" | [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #001 (eka-meaning): The original says "eka" means "one in Sanskrit" and names the next analogue after silicon ekasilicon. The page's relative-position gloss is sound. Entry 51 is a gloss, not a purported verbatim Mendeleev quotation. - CONFIRMED | "as in one beyond the element above the gap" | [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #002 (eka-relative): The original says "eka" means "one in Sanskrit" and names the next analogue after silicon ekasilicon. The page's relative-position gloss is sound. Entry 51 is a gloss, not a purported verbatim Mendeleev quotation. - CONFIRMED | "In 1871 Dmitri Mendeleev had a table of the elements with holes in it." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html) | #003 (1871-holes): The 1889 lecture identifies gallium/Lecoq, scandium/Nilson and germanium/Winkler with the three 1871 predictions. Stewart supplies discovery years 1875, 1879, 1886; 1886 minus 1871 is fifteen. Winkler explicitly identifies eka-silicium. Specific numerical and discovery-method details are checked separately below. - CONFIRMED | "he described the element that would fill it : its atomic weight, its density, the formula and colour of its oxide, even how it would be found." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html); [RSC-lesson](https://www.rsc.org/images/23_The_Periodic_Law_tcm18-30005.pdf) | #004 (predicted-properties): The lecture supports the three predictions; fuller detail is in Principles, chs. XV and XVII, and the RSC lesson table: "white powder of EsO₂", "1871 prediction". The RSC table is readable in the search index although its old direct PDF URL now returns 404. Formula, density and spectroscopic discovery prediction are also in the primary book. The source-record excerpt alone omits these details. - CONFIRMED | "He named these unborn elements with a borrowed Sanskrit number-word: eka-aluminium , eka-boron , eka-silicon [...] one-beyond the element above each gap." | [Kak](https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411080); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #005 (borrowed-names): Kak reproduces the Sanskrit prefixes "eka, dvi, and tri (Sanskrit one, two, three)"; Mendeleev's own text independently defines eka. - CONFIRMED | "Within fifteen years gallium , scandium and germanium were pulled out of ores and lit up in flames, and the measured numbers matched his guesses to within a few percent." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html) | #006 (ores-flames-fifteen): The 1889 lecture identifies gallium/Lecoq, scandium/Nilson and germanium/Winkler with the three 1871 predictions. Stewart supplies discovery years 1875, 1879, 1886; 1886 minus 1871 is fifteen. Winkler explicitly identifies eka-silicium. Specific numerical and discovery-method details are checked separately below. - CONFIRMED | "Mendeleev's rule was simple and brutal: line the known elements up by atomic weight, and a family likeness recurs at regular intervals [...] the periodic law." | https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/ea/MENDELEEVann.HTML | #007 (periodic-law): The dated 1869 text says "ordering the elements according to increasing atomic weight" and that analogous elements fall together. Its table was read, not treated as an 1871 table. - CONFIRMED | "Mendeleev's ordering principle was atomic weight [...] and yet he broke it, on purpose, in a handful of places." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Oxford](https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/highlights-archive/moseley-and-x-rays); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #016 (intentional-inversions): The primary lecture contrasts measured Te 128 with I 126.5 and insists on a lower Te weight to preserve the chemical arrangement. Thus chemical position overrode the reported measurement. It did not mean Mendeleev accepted today's masses. The approximate forty-year interval runs from 1869/1871 to 1913; "fudge" is interpretive wording, not a quoted contemporary judgment. - CONFIRMED | "Tellurium is heavier than iodine , but he placed tellurium first , because its chemistry belongs with oxygen and sulphur and iodine's with the halogens." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Oxford](https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/highlights-archive/moseley-and-x-rays); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #017 (tellurium-chemistry): The primary lecture contrasts measured Te 128 with I 126.5 and insists on a lower Te weight to preserve the chemical arrangement. Thus chemical position overrode the reported measurement. It did not mean Mendeleev accepted today's masses. The approximate forty-year interval runs from 1869/1871 to 1913; "fudge" is interpretive wording, not a quoted contemporary judgment. - CONFIRMED | "For forty years this looked like a fudge." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Oxford](https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/highlights-archive/moseley-and-x-rays); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #018 (forty-years): The primary lecture contrasts measured Te 128 with I 126.5 and insists on a lower Te weight to preserve the chemical arrangement. Thus chemical position overrode the reported measurement. It did not mean Mendeleev accepted today's masses. The approximate forty-year interval runs from 1869/1871 to 1913; "fudge" is interpretive wording, not a quoted contemporary judgment. - CONFIRMED | "The line below is real: each dot is an element, plotted by the square root of its characteristic X-ray frequency." | https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf | #021 (xray-points): All thirteen K-alpha-1 energies were read in the table, with their element labels. Hz values follow E/h. The source-record excerpt is only the table attribution; the body supplies the actual values. - CONFIRMED | "So the table's true axis was a whole number all along [...] a count of protons no one could see in 1871." | [Oxford](https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/highlights-archive/moseley-and-x-rays); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #023 (protons-1871): Oxford identifies the fitted integer as atomic number Z and nuclear positive charge, "the number of protons" in modern language. Its discussion explicitly connects this to the Te/I ordering. Modern Te=52 and I=53 were checked in CIAAW. - CONFIRMED | "Moseley was killed at Gallipoli in 1915, twenty-seven years old." | https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/highlights-archive/moseley-and-x-rays | #024 (moseley-death): Oxford: "at the age of 27" and "10 August 1915", on the Gallipoli Peninsula. Both year and age agree. - CONFIRMED | "Mendeleev predicted more than came true, and was wrong in ways worth naming." | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0 | #025 (failed-predictions): Stewart distinguishes three detailed successes from less successful heavier predictions. The page's general distinction is supported; it is not treated as an exact numerical success rate. - CONFIRMED | "The method was powerful because it was periodicity , not prophecy [...] and periodicity by weight was itself only an approximation to the deeper law." | [Oxford](https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/highlights-archive/moseley-and-x-rays); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #026 (periodicity-approximation): Oxford identifies the fitted integer as atomic number Z and nuclear positive charge, "the number of protons" in modern language. Its discussion explicitly connects this to the Te/I ordering. Modern Te=52 and I=53 were checked in CIAAW. - CONFIRMED | "In March 1869 Dmitri Mendeleev laid the known elements out by atomic weight and saw a **period** [...] a family likeness that returns at regular intervals." | https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/ea/MENDELEEVann.HTML | #048 (md-march1869): The dated 1869 text says "ordering the elements according to increasing atomic weight" and that analogous elements fall together. Its table was read, not treated as an 1871 table. - CONFIRMED | "he **left the square empty and predicted its tenant**, interpolating weight, density and chemistry from the neighbours above, below, and to either side." | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0 | #049 (md-prediction-method): Stewart describes interpolation using available lower/higher analogues and neighbours. This qualified markdown wording is acceptable; the universal arithmetic average in entry 8 is not. - CONFIRMED | "He labelled the gaps with Sanskrit numeral prefixes [...] *eka-* (one), *dvi-* (two), *tri-* (three) [...] so *eka-aluminium* meant "one place below aluminium."" | [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #050 (md-sanskrit): The original says "eka" means "one in Sanskrit" and names the next analogue after silicon ekasilicon. The page's relative-position gloss is sound. Entry 51 is a gloss, not a purported verbatim Mendeleev quotation. - CONFIRMED | "*eka-aluminium* meant "one place below aluminium."" | [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #051 (below-aluminium-quote): The original says "eka" means "one in Sanskrit" and names the next analogue after silicon ekasilicon. The page's relative-position gloss is sound. Entry 51 is a gloss, not a purported verbatim Mendeleev quotation. - CONFIRMED | "Between 1875 and 1886 three of those gaps were filled by **gallium**, **scandium** and **germanium**, and the measured properties matched the fifteen-year-old predictions closely enough that Winkler, germanium's discoverer, wrote there could be no doubt it was Mendeleev's *eka-silicon*." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html) | #052 (md-discoveries): The 1889 lecture identifies gallium/Lecoq, scandium/Nilson and germanium/Winkler with the three 1871 predictions. Stewart supplies discovery years 1875, 1879, 1886; 1886 minus 1871 is fifteen. Winkler explicitly identifies eka-silicium. Specific numerical and discovery-method details are checked separately below. - CONFIRMED | "the predictions that *failed* (the aether-elements *coronium* and *newtonium*; *eka-manganese*, right but unfillable until technetium was synthesised in 1937), and the charming Pāṇini-homage story demoted to its true status as a flagged conjecture." | [Lente](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40828-019-0092-5); [RSC-Tc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/43/technetium); [Kak](https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411080) | #055 (md-failures): Lente supplies the failed aether elements; RSC supplies technetium's 1937 synthesis; Kak supplies the conjectural Sanskrit story. The source-record abstract alone supports only the first part. "Unfillable" is read here as the historical difficulty of obtaining a stable sample, not the false absolute absence stated explicitly in entry 145. - CONFIRMED | "Mendeleev broke his own weight-ordering at **tellurium and iodine** [...] placing the heavier element first because its chemistry demanded it [...] and for forty years that looked like a fudge." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Oxford](https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/highlights-archive/moseley-and-x-rays); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #056 (md-tellurium): The primary lecture contrasts measured Te 128 with I 126.5 and insists on a lower Te weight to preserve the chemical arrangement. Thus chemical position overrode the reported measurement. It did not mean Mendeleev accepted today's masses. The approximate forty-year interval runs from 1869/1871 to 1913; "fudge" is interpretive wording, not a quoted contemporary judgment. - CONFIRMED | "The table's true axis had been a whole number [...] a count of protons [...] all along;" | [Oxford](https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/highlights-archive/moseley-and-x-rays); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #059 (md-axis-protons): Oxford identifies the fitted integer as atomic number Z and nuclear positive charge, "the number of protons" in modern language. Its discussion explicitly connects this to the Te/I ordering. Modern Te=52 and I=53 were checked in CIAAW. - CONFIRMED | "In 1871 Mendeleev had a table of the elements with holes in it, and rather than shrug, he described the elements that would fill them: their atomic weight, their density, the formula and colour of their oxide, even how they'd be found." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html); [RSC-lesson](https://www.rsc.org/images/23_The_Periodic_Law_tcm18-30005.pdf) | #062 (dek-1): The lecture supports the three predictions; fuller detail is in Principles, chs. XV and XVII, and the RSC lesson table: "white powder of EsO₂", "1871 prediction". The RSC table is readable in the search index although its old direct PDF URL now returns 404. Formula, density and spectroscopic discovery prediction are also in the primary book. The source-record excerpt alone omits these details. - CONFIRMED | "He named these unborn elements with a borrowed Sanskrit number-word: eka-aluminium, eka-boron, eka-silicon, 'one-beyond' the element above each gap." | [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #063 (dek-2): The original says "eka" means "one in Sanskrit" and names the next analogue after silicon ekasilicon. The page's relative-position gloss is sound. Entry 51 is a gloss, not a purported verbatim Mendeleev quotation. - CONFIRMED | "The prediction was the test, and the world passed it." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html) | #065 (dek-4): The 1889 lecture identifies gallium/Lecoq, scandium/Nilson and germanium/Winkler with the three 1871 predictions. Stewart supplies discovery years 1875, 1879, 1886; 1886 minus 1871 is fifteen. Winkler explicitly identifies eka-silicium. Specific numerical and discovery-method details are checked separately below. - CONFIRMED | "In 1871 Mendeleev left holes in his table and described the elements that would fill them (their weight, their density, the formula of their oxide) and named them with a Sanskrit word for one-beyond." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html); [RSC-lesson](https://www.rsc.org/images/23_The_Periodic_Law_tcm18-30005.pdf) | #068 (meta-description-1): The lecture supports the three predictions; fuller detail is in Principles, chs. XV and XVII, and the RSC lesson table: "white powder of EsO₂", "1871 prediction". The RSC table is readable in the search index although its old direct PDF URL now returns 404. Formula, density and spectroscopic discovery prediction are also in the primary book. The source-record excerpt alone omits these details. - CONFIRMED | "Then gallium, scandium and germanium were found, and the numbers matched." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html) | #069 (meta-description-2): The 1889 lecture identifies gallium/Lecoq, scandium/Nilson and germanium/Winkler with the three 1871 predictions. Stewart supplies discovery years 1875, 1879, 1886; 1886 minus 1871 is fifteen. Winkler explicitly identifies eka-silicium. Specific numerical and discovery-method details are checked separately below. - CONFIRMED | "The prediction is the check." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html) | #070 (meta-description-3): The 1889 lecture identifies gallium/Lecoq, scandium/Nilson and germanium/Winkler with the three 1871 predictions. Stewart supplies discovery years 1875, 1879, 1886; 1886 minus 1871 is fifteen. Winkler explicitly identifies eka-silicium. Specific numerical and discovery-method details are checked separately below. - CONFIRMED | "Then they were found, and the numbers matched." | [Kak](https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411080); [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html) | #073 (meta-og-description-2): SOURCE RECORD: the selected excerpt explains the Sanskrit name, not the later agreement. The claim is supported elsewhere in Kak's introduction, which dates identification to "1875 and 1886", and directly by Mendeleev's 1889 lecture. Replace the excerpt with the relevant passage. - CONFIRMED | "The prediction is the check." | [Kak](https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411080); [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html) | #074 (meta-og-description-3): SOURCE RECORD: the selected excerpt explains the Sanskrit name, not the later agreement. The claim is supported elsewhere in Kak's introduction, which dates identification to "1875 and 1886", and directly by Mendeleev's 1889 lecture. Replace the excerpt with the relevant passage. - CONFIRMED | "A theory that predicted facts no one had measured yet." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html) | #075 (meta-twitter-description-1): The 1889 lecture identifies gallium/Lecoq, scandium/Nilson and germanium/Winkler with the three 1871 predictions. Stewart supplies discovery years 1875, 1879, 1886; 1886 minus 1871 is fifteen. Winkler explicitly identifies eka-silicium. Specific numerical and discovery-method details are checked separately below. - CONFIRMED | "Mendeleev's 1871 numbers beside the ones found a decade later: the error a thin bar you can read." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html) | #076 (meta-twitter-description-2): The 1889 lecture identifies gallium/Lecoq, scandium/Nilson and germanium/Winkler with the three 1871 predictions. Stewart supplies discovery years 1875, 1879, 1886; 1886 minus 1871 is fifteen. Winkler explicitly identifies eka-silicium. Specific numerical and discovery-method details are checked separately below. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1875 by Lecoq de Boisbaudran" | https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Gallium.html | #077 (Ga-isolated): Lecoq's 1877 report: "reduced to the metallic state for the first time in November, 1875". This supports both isolation and discoverer. - CONFIRMED | "Atomic weight about {68}; a light metal of density near {5.9}." | [Greenwood](https://lib.ysu.am/disciplines_bk/931545868d143aa17a18c4ad33a7ea3e.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #078 (Ga-gap-1): Greenwood and Earnshaw, printed p. 217, table 7.2, read from the scanned page: predicted mass about 68, density 5.9, valence 3; observed mass 69.723 and density 5.904. The page's 69.72 is rounded. The historical low-melting-point date in this table conflicts with Scerri and is treated separately. - CONFIRMED | "Oxide {Ea₂O₃}, dissolving in both acid and alkali; and {most likely found by the spectroscope}." | [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html); [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Greenwood](https://lib.ysu.am/disciplines_bk/931545868d143aa17a18c4ad33a7ea3e.pdf) | #080 (Ga-gap-3): Mendeleev's book predicts the aluminium analogue and spectroscopic discovery. Scerri table 5.1 gives the stable oxide Ga2O3 soluble in acid and alkali; Greenwood discusses the group's amphoteric character. The source-record excerpts divide these parts across sources. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1875 by Lecoq de Boisbaudran atomic weight 68 → 69.72 g/mol −2.5%" | [Greenwood](https://lib.ysu.am/disciplines_bk/931545868d143aa17a18c4ad33a7ea3e.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #081 (Ga-row-1): Greenwood and Earnshaw, printed p. 217, table 7.2, read from the scanned page: predicted mass about 68, density 5.9, valence 3; observed mass 69.723 and density 5.904. The page's 69.72 is rounded. The historical low-melting-point date in this table conflicts with Scerri and is treated separately. - CONFIRMED | "predicted: Mendeleev 1871; measured: 69.723 (CIAAW 2021); Lecoq's contemporary value ≈69.9" | [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [RSC-Ga](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/31/gallium); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #083 (Ga-citation-1): Modern mass is 69.723 in CIAAW and RSC. Mendeleev's printed table separately gives "Ga", "69·9", "(Boisbaudran)". The original RSC/CIAAW excerpt validates only the modern mass, not the historical value. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1875 by Lecoq de Boisbaudran density 5.9 → 5.904 g/cm³ −0.1%" | [Greenwood](https://lib.ysu.am/disciplines_bk/931545868d143aa17a18c4ad33a7ea3e.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #084 (Ga-row-2): Greenwood and Earnshaw, printed p. 217, table 7.2, read from the scanned page: predicted mass about 68, density 5.9, valence 3; observed mass 69.723 and density 5.904. The page's 69.72 is rounded. The historical low-melting-point date in this table conflicts with Scerri and is treated separately. - CONFIRMED | "predicted: Mendeleev 1871 (5.9, not the 6.0 some tables round to); measured: 5.904 (CRC)" | [Greenwood](https://lib.ysu.am/disciplines_bk/931545868d143aa17a18c4ad33a7ea3e.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #086 (Ga-citation-2): Greenwood and Earnshaw, printed p. 217, table 7.2, read from the scanned page: predicted mass about 68, density 5.9, valence 3; observed mass 69.723 and density 5.904. The page's 69.72 is rounded. The historical low-melting-point date in this table conflicts with Scerri and is treated separately. - CONFIRMED | "measured: 29.76 °C (RSC, gallium)" | https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/31/gallium | #088 (Ga-citation-3): RSC gives "29.7646°C". This rounds to the page's 29.76 degrees C. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1875 by Lecoq de Boisbaudran oxide Ea₂O₃ → Ga₂O₃ amphoteric, as foretold" | [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html); [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Greenwood](https://lib.ysu.am/disciplines_bk/931545868d143aa17a18c4ad33a7ea3e.pdf) | #089 (Ga-row-4): Mendeleev's book predicts the aluminium analogue and spectroscopic discovery. Scerri table 5.1 gives the stable oxide Ga2O3 soluble in acid and alkali; Greenwood discusses the group's amphoteric character. The source-record excerpts divide these parts across sources. - CONFIRMED | "Ga₂O₃ is amphoteric (Greenwood & Earnshaw, Chemistry of the Elements)" | [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html); [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Greenwood](https://lib.ysu.am/disciplines_bk/931545868d143aa17a18c4ad33a7ea3e.pdf) | #090 (Ga-citation-4): Mendeleev's book predicts the aluminium analogue and spectroscopic discovery. Scerri table 5.1 gives the stable oxide Ga2O3 soluble in acid and alkali; Greenwood discusses the group's amphoteric character. The source-record excerpts divide these parts across sources. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1875 by Lecoq de Boisbaudran valence 3 → 3 exact" | [Greenwood](https://lib.ysu.am/disciplines_bk/931545868d143aa17a18c4ad33a7ea3e.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #091 (Ga-row-5): Greenwood and Earnshaw, printed p. 217, table 7.2, read from the scanned page: predicted mass about 68, density 5.9, valence 3; observed mass 69.723 and density 5.904. The page's 69.72 is rounded. The historical low-melting-point date in this table conflicts with Scerri and is treated separately. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1875 by Lecoq de Boisbaudran how it would be found by the spectroscope → spectroscopy [...] two violet lines ✓ exactly as predicted" | [RSC-Ga](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/31/gallium); [Lecoq](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Gallium.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #092 (Ga-row-6): RSC describes two violet spectral lines in 1875. Lecoq's primary report gives lines near 417.0 and 403.1 nm; Mendeleev's book confirms prediction by spectroscope. - CONFIRMED | "Lecoq found Ga by two new violet spectral lines in zinc blende, 1875 (RSC)" | [RSC-Ga](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/31/gallium); [Lecoq](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Gallium.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #093 (Ga-citation-6): RSC describes two violet spectral lines in 1875. Lecoq's primary report gives lines near 417.0 and 403.1 nm; Mendeleev's book confirms prediction by spectroscope. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1886 by Winkler" | https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html | #095 (Ge-isolated): Winkler's report is dated 1886 and describes the newly separated element and its measured properties. The name and discoverer match. - CONFIRMED | "Atomic weight about {72}; a {dark-grey} metal of density near {5.5}." | [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #096 (Ge-gap-1): Scerri table 5.3 was read in full: prediction/measurement mass 72/72.32, density 5.5/5.47, specific heat 0.073/0.076, dark gray/grayish white, oxide density 4.7/4.703, chloride density 1.9/1.887 and boiling point 100/86. Winkler explicitly gives the predicted boiling ceiling "probably a little below 100°". Formulae GeO2 and GeCl4 agree. Rounding 4.703 to one decimal gives 4.7. - CONFIRMED | "Oxide {EsO₂} of density {4.7}, refractory." | [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #097 (Ge-gap-2): Scerri table 5.3 was read in full: prediction/measurement mass 72/72.32, density 5.5/5.47, specific heat 0.073/0.076, dark gray/grayish white, oxide density 4.7/4.703, chloride density 1.9/1.887 and boiling point 100/86. Winkler explicitly gives the predicted boiling ceiling "probably a little below 100°". Formulae GeO2 and GeCl4 agree. Rounding 4.703 to one decimal gives 4.7. - CONFIRMED | "A chloride {EsCl₄} boiling {below 100 °C}, density near {1.9}." | [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #098 (Ge-gap-3): Scerri table 5.3 was read in full: prediction/measurement mass 72/72.32, density 5.5/5.47, specific heat 0.073/0.076, dark gray/grayish white, oxide density 4.7/4.703, chloride density 1.9/1.887 and boiling point 100/86. Winkler explicitly gives the predicted boiling ceiling "probably a little below 100°". Formulae GeO2 and GeCl4 agree. Rounding 4.703 to one decimal gives 4.7. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1886 by Winkler atomic weight 72 → 72.63 g/mol −0.9%" | [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [RSC-Ge](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/32/germanium); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html); [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html) | #099 (Ge-row-1): CIAAW and RSC give 72.630, rounded on the page to 72.63. Mendeleev's own later table gives "72·3" and credits Winkler; Scerri gives 72.32. The original RSC/CIAAW excerpt alone does not establish the historical value. - CONFIRMED | "predicted: Mendeleev 1871; measured: 72.630 (CIAAW 2021); Winkler-era ≈72.3" | [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [RSC-Ge](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/32/germanium); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html); [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html) | #101 (Ge-citation-1): CIAAW and RSC give 72.630, rounded on the page to 72.63. Mendeleev's own later table gives "72·3" and credits Winkler; Scerri gives 72.32. The original RSC/CIAAW excerpt alone does not establish the historical value. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1886 by Winkler specific heat 0.073 → 0.076 cal/g·°C −3.9%" | [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #105 (Ge-row-3): Scerri table 5.3 was read in full: prediction/measurement mass 72/72.32, density 5.5/5.47, specific heat 0.073/0.076, dark gray/grayish white, oxide density 4.7/4.703, chloride density 1.9/1.887 and boiling point 100/86. Winkler explicitly gives the predicted boiling ceiling "probably a little below 100°". Formulae GeO2 and GeCl4 agree. Rounding 4.703 to one decimal gives 4.7. - CONFIRMED | "the classic eka-silicon table (Winkler 1887; reproduced in Scerri 2007)" | [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #107 (Ge-citation-3): Scerri table 5.3 was read in full: prediction/measurement mass 72/72.32, density 5.5/5.47, specific heat 0.073/0.076, dark gray/grayish white, oxide density 4.7/4.703, chloride density 1.9/1.887 and boiling point 100/86. Winkler explicitly gives the predicted boiling ceiling "probably a little below 100°". Formulae GeO2 and GeCl4 agree. Rounding 4.703 to one decimal gives 4.7. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1886 by Winkler oxide density 4.7 → 4.7 g/cm³ +0.0%" | [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #108 (Ge-row-4): Scerri table 5.3 was read in full: prediction/measurement mass 72/72.32, density 5.5/5.47, specific heat 0.073/0.076, dark gray/grayish white, oxide density 4.7/4.703, chloride density 1.9/1.887 and boiling point 100/86. Winkler explicitly gives the predicted boiling ceiling "probably a little below 100°". Formulae GeO2 and GeCl4 agree. Rounding 4.703 to one decimal gives 4.7. - CONFIRMED | "predicted & measured (1886): 4.7 [...] the famous exact match; ⚠ modern hexagonal GeO₂ is 4.23, so the perfect hit is against the contemporary value" | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Teck](https://www.teck.com/media/Products-Germanium_Dioxide_Product_Data_Sheet.pdf) | #110 (Ge-citation-4): Winkler-era oxide density is 4.703, which rounds to 4.7. Teck's product sheet explicitly pairs "Density 4.23 g/cm3" with "Hexagonal (soluble) crystal structure". Winkler's primary report confirms the eka-silicium identification. The source record's Otto density excerpt alone does not establish crystal phase. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1886 by Winkler chloride density 1.9 → 1.887 g/cm³ +0.7%" | [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #111 (Ge-row-5): Scerri table 5.3 was read in full: prediction/measurement mass 72/72.32, density 5.5/5.47, specific heat 0.073/0.076, dark gray/grayish white, oxide density 4.7/4.703, chloride density 1.9/1.887 and boiling point 100/86. Winkler explicitly gives the predicted boiling ceiling "probably a little below 100°". Formulae GeO2 and GeCl4 agree. Rounding 4.703 to one decimal gives 4.7. - CONFIRMED | "predicted: Mendeleev 1871; measured: GeCl₄ 1.879–1.887" | [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); https://web.mit.edu/8.13/8.13c/references-fall/aip/aip-handbook-section2l.pdf | #113 (Ge-citation-5): Winkler reports tetrachloride specific gravity 1.887 at 18.0 degrees C. The AIP handbook table gives 1.879 at 20 degrees C. The page gives a range rather than incorrectly assigning one common temperature. The high endpoint is directly supported by the cited primary source. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1886 by Winkler colour dark grey → greyish-white close" | [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #114 (Ge-row-6): Scerri table 5.3 was read in full: prediction/measurement mass 72/72.32, density 5.5/5.47, specific heat 0.073/0.076, dark gray/grayish white, oxide density 4.7/4.703, chloride density 1.9/1.887 and boiling point 100/86. Winkler explicitly gives the predicted boiling ceiling "probably a little below 100°". Formulae GeO2 and GeCl4 agree. Rounding 4.703 to one decimal gives 4.7. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1886 by Winkler oxide EsO₂ → GeO₂ exact" | [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #115 (Ge-row-7): Scerri table 5.3 was read in full: prediction/measurement mass 72/72.32, density 5.5/5.47, specific heat 0.073/0.076, dark gray/grayish white, oxide density 4.7/4.703, chloride density 1.9/1.887 and boiling point 100/86. Winkler explicitly gives the predicted boiling ceiling "probably a little below 100°". Formulae GeO2 and GeCl4 agree. Rounding 4.703 to one decimal gives 4.7. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1886 by Winkler chloride EsCl₄ → GeCl₄ exact" | [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #116 (Ge-row-8): Scerri table 5.3 was read in full: prediction/measurement mass 72/72.32, density 5.5/5.47, specific heat 0.073/0.076, dark gray/grayish white, oxide density 4.7/4.703, chloride density 1.9/1.887 and boiling point 100/86. Winkler explicitly gives the predicted boiling ceiling "probably a little below 100°". Formulae GeO2 and GeCl4 agree. Rounding 4.703 to one decimal gives 4.7. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1886 by Winkler chloride boiling point below 100 °C → 86 °C under the ceiling ✓" | [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #117 (Ge-row-9): Scerri table 5.3 was read in full: prediction/measurement mass 72/72.32, density 5.5/5.47, specific heat 0.073/0.076, dark gray/grayish white, oxide density 4.7/4.703, chloride density 1.9/1.887 and boiling point 100/86. Winkler explicitly gives the predicted boiling ceiling "probably a little below 100°". Formulae GeO2 and GeCl4 agree. Rounding 4.703 to one decimal gives 4.7. - CONFIRMED | "Mendeleev gave a ceiling (<100 °C), not a point; GeCl₄ boils ≈86 °C" | [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #118 (Ge-citation-9): Scerri table 5.3 was read in full: prediction/measurement mass 72/72.32, density 5.5/5.47, specific heat 0.073/0.076, dark gray/grayish white, oxide density 4.7/4.703, chloride density 1.9/1.887 and boiling point 100/86. Winkler explicitly gives the predicted boiling ceiling "probably a little below 100°". Formulae GeO2 and GeCl4 agree. Rounding 4.703 to one decimal gives 4.7. - CONFIRMED | "predicted 1871 · isolated 1886 by Winkler valence 4 → 4 exact" | [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #119 (Ge-row-10): Scerri table 5.3 was read in full: prediction/measurement mass 72/72.32, density 5.5/5.47, specific heat 0.073/0.076, dark gray/grayish white, oxide density 4.7/4.703, chloride density 1.9/1.887 and boiling point 100/86. Winkler explicitly gives the predicted boiling ceiling "probably a little below 100°". Formulae GeO2 and GeCl4 agree. Rounding 4.703 to one decimal gives 4.7. - CONFIRMED | "The showpiece. Winkler called his new element {big:germanium} and, comparing it square by square to a prediction fifteen years old, wrote that there could be no doubt it was Mendeleev's eka-silicon. One honest asterisk: the oxide-density bullseye (4.7 → 4.70) is measured against the 1886 value; modern hexagonal GeO₂ is 4.23." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Teck](https://www.teck.com/media/Products-Germanium_Dioxide_Product_Data_Sheet.pdf) | #121 (Ge-footnote): Winkler-era oxide density is 4.703, which rounds to 4.7. Teck's product sheet explicitly pairs "Density 4.23 g/cm3" with "Hexagonal (soluble) crystal structure". Winkler's primary report confirms the eka-silicium identification. The source record's Otto density excerpt alone does not establish crystal phase. - CONFIRMED | "Atomic weight about {44}." | [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html); [Nilson](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Scandium.html) | #123 (Sc-gap-1): Mendeleev's eka-boron account and Nilson's comparison give weight about 44, trivalent oxide, oxide density about 3.5, stronger basicity than alumina and no ordinary alum. The rare-oxide description is consistent with the difficult extraction. Source read in full. - CONFIRMED | "A higher oxide {Eb₂O₃} of density near {3.5}; its sulfate like aluminium's, but it would {form no alum}." | [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html); [Nilson](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Scandium.html) | #124 (Sc-gap-2): Mendeleev's eka-boron account and Nilson's comparison give weight about 44, trivalent oxide, oxide density about 3.5, stronger basicity than alumina and no ordinary alum. The rare-oxide description is consistent with the difficult extraction. Source read in full. - CONFIRMED | "A base stronger than aluminium's [...] a rare, hard-won oxide." | [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html); [Nilson](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Scandium.html) | #125 (Sc-gap-3): Mendeleev's eka-boron account and Nilson's comparison give weight about 44, trivalent oxide, oxide density about 3.5, stronger basicity than alumina and no ordinary alum. The rare-oxide description is consistent with the difficult extraction. Source read in full. - CONFIRMED | "predicted: Mendeleev 1871; measured: 44.956 (CIAAW 2021); Nilson-era ≈43.8" | [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [Martin](https://archive.org/download/cu31924000043939/cu31924000043939_djvu.txt); [Nilson](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Scandium.html) | #128 (Sc-citation-1): CIAAW gives 44.955907, rounding to 44.956. Martin's historical table, printed p. 114, gives "Atomic weight, 43'8" for scandium. The page says Nilson-era, not Nilson's exact final published determination, which was about 44. The RSC/CIAAW excerpt alone only supports the modern value. - CONFIRMED | "predicted: Mendeleev 1871 (the oxide, Eb₂O₃); measured: Sc₂O₃ 3.86 [...] the loosest of the three fits" | https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html; [Nilson](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Scandium.html) | #131 (Sc-citation-2): The specified quantity is oxide density, not metal density. Lesker gives Sc2O3 "Theoretical Density (g/cc) 3.86"; Nilson gives the predicted oxide density about 3.5. Recalculation gives -9.3264 percent, the largest of these nine errors. - CONFIRMED | "The loosest fit of the three [...] the oxide density misses by {big:nearly 9%}. It was {big:P. T. Cleve}, not the discoverer Nilson, who recognised the new oxide as eka-boron and wrote to tell Mendeleev. A real prediction, confirmed, with a real error bar." | [RSC-Sc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/21/scandium); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0); [Orna-Fontani](https://www.scribd.com/document/836554362/GIUNTA-2021-BOOK-150-Years-of-the-Periodic-Table-Symposium) | #136 (Sc-footnote): RSC and Stewart credit Cleve with recognizing the correspondence. Orna and Fontani (2021), p. 241, quote his letter of 19 August 1879: "your element eka-boron has been isolated. It is scandium". The letter claim is supported by that additional source; the recorded RSC/Stewart excerpts alone omit the letter. The approximately nine percent error is reproduced. - CONFIRMED | "predicted: Mendeleev 1871; measured: 69.723 (CIAAW 2021); Lecoq's contemporary value ≈69.9" | [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [RSC-Ga](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/31/gallium); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #137 (Ga-modern-weight): Modern mass is 69.723 in CIAAW and RSC. Mendeleev's printed table separately gives "Ga", "69·9", "(Boisbaudran)". The original RSC/CIAAW excerpt validates only the modern mass, not the historical value. - CONFIRMED | "predicted: Mendeleev 1871; measured: 72.630 (CIAAW 2021); Winkler-era ≈72.3" | [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [RSC-Ge](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/32/germanium); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html); [Scerri](https://dokumen.pub/the-periodic-table-its-story-and-its-significance-1stnbsped-9780195305739-9781429459426-0195305736.html) | #138 (Ge-modern-weight): CIAAW and RSC give 72.630, rounded on the page to 72.63. Mendeleev's own later table gives "72·3" and credits Winkler; Scerri gives 72.32. The original RSC/CIAAW excerpt alone does not establish the historical value. - CONFIRMED | "predicted: Mendeleev 1871; measured: 44.956 (CIAAW 2021); Nilson-era ≈43.8" | [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [Martin](https://archive.org/download/cu31924000043939/cu31924000043939_djvu.txt); [Nilson](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Scandium.html) | #139 (Sc-modern-weight): CIAAW gives 44.955907, rounding to 44.956. Martin's historical table, printed p. 114, gives "Atomic weight, 43'8" for scandium. The page says Nilson-era, not Nilson's exact final published determination, which was about 44. The RSC/CIAAW excerpt alone only supports the modern value. - CONFIRMED | "To carry the luminiferous *aether*, Mendeleev (1902–04) proposed inert gases *lighter than hydrogen* [...] *coronium* and *newtonium*, atomic weights a fraction of one." | [Lente](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40828-019-0092-5); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0) | #140 (miss-1-1): Lente's full article, beyond the short abstract in the record, discusses the 1902-1904 hypothetical lighter-than-hydrogen elements and their theoretical failure. Stewart reproduces the 1904 table with x and y. These are the proposed inert elements, not surviving modern chemical elements. - CONFIRMED | "No such elements exist." | [Lente](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40828-019-0092-5); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0) | #141 (miss-1-2): Lente's full article, beyond the short abstract in the record, discusses the 1902-1904 hypothetical lighter-than-hydrogen elements and their theoretical failure. Stewart reproduces the 1904 table with x and y. These are the proposed inert elements, not surviving modern chemical elements. - CONFIRMED | "The aether went, and they went with it." | [Lente](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40828-019-0092-5); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0) | #143 (miss-1-4): Lente's full article, beyond the short abstract in the record, discusses the 1902-1904 hypothetical lighter-than-hydrogen elements and their theoretical failure. Stewart reproduces the 1904 table with x and y. These are the proposed inert elements, not surviving modern chemical elements. - CONFIRMED | "He left this gap, and he was *right* that an element belonged there." | [RSC-Tc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/43/technetium); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0) | #144 (miss-2-1): RSC names technetium as element 43 and dates artificial discovery to 1937. All its isotopes are radioactive. 1937 minus 1886 equals 51. These facts do not imply the absolute absence of naturally occurring technetium alleged in entry 145. - CONFIRMED | "*Technetium* was synthesised in 1937, fifty-one years after germanium." | [RSC-Tc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/43/technetium); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0) | #146 (miss-2-3): RSC names technetium as element 43 and dates artificial discovery to 1937. All its isotopes are radioactive. 1937 minus 1886 equals 51. These facts do not imply the absolute absence of naturally occurring technetium alleged in entry 145. - CONFIRMED | "The gap was honest; the world simply had no stable atom to put in it." | [RSC-Tc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/43/technetium); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0) | #147 (miss-2-4): RSC names technetium as element 43 and dates artificial discovery to 1937. All its isotopes are radioactive. 1937 minus 1886 equals 51. These facts do not imply the absolute absence of naturally occurring technetium alleged in entry 145. - CONFIRMED | "The *lighter* gaps [...] gallium, scandium, germanium [...] were strikingly accurate." | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0 | #148 (miss-3-1): Stewart distinguishes three detailed successes from less successful heavier predictions. The page's general distinction is supported; it is not treated as an exact numerical success rate. - CONFIRMED | "The *heavier* ones were hit-or-miss." | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0 | #149 (miss-3-2): Stewart distinguishes three detailed successes from less successful heavier predictions. The page's general distinction is supported; it is not treated as an exact numerical success rate. - CONFIRMED | "Mendeleev did not foresee the *lanthanides*, the fourteen rare earths that crowd into a single square of row six, and guesses like his *eka-niobium* (predicted weight ≈146) map onto no one real element." | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0 | #150 (miss-3-3): Stewart explains the misplaced lanthanide gaps and quotes the 1871 prediction "eka-niobium, En = 146". Later in the same paper it says 145, the passage selected in the source record. The earlier direct quotation supports the page's approximate 146. The fourteen members occupy the f-series insertion in the sixth period. - CONFIRMED | "Periodicity by weight was itself only an approximation to the deeper law." | [Oxford](https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/highlights-archive/moseley-and-x-rays); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #151 (miss-3-4): Oxford identifies the fitted integer as atomic number Z and nuclear positive charge, "the number of protons" in modern language. Its discussion explicitly connects this to the Te/I ordering. Modern Te=52 and I=53 were checked in CIAAW. - CONFIRMED | "A lovely story says Mendeleev chose *Sanskrit* number-words in homage to the grammarian *Pāṇini*, his table echoing Pāṇini's grid of sounds." | https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411080 | #152 (miss-4-1): Kak explicitly attributes the proposed Panini homage to Paul Kiparsky and cites "private communication". This confirms the existence and modern provenance of the story, not Mendeleev's actual motive. - CONFIRMED | "That he used *eka / dvi / tri* is his own and documented." | [Kak](https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0411080); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #153 (miss-4-2): Kak reproduces the Sanskrit prefixes "eka, dvi, and tri (Sanskrit one, two, three)"; Mendeleev's own text independently defines eka. - CONFIRMED | "eka-manganese (atomic number 43)" | [RSC-Tc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/43/technetium); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0) | #156 (eka-manganese-43): RSC names technetium as element 43 and dates artificial discovery to 1937. All its isotopes are radioactive. 1937 minus 1886 equals 51. These facts do not imply the absolute absence of naturally occurring technetium alleged in entry 145. - CONFIRMED | "To keep tellurium with oxygen and sulphur [...] where its chemistry plainly belongs [...] Mendeleev placed it {w:against his own weight-rule}." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Oxford](https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/highlights-archive/moseley-and-x-rays); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #158 (noteWeight-2): The primary lecture contrasts measured Te 128 with I 126.5 and insists on a lower Te weight to preserve the chemical arrangement. Thus chemical position overrode the reported measurement. It did not mean Mendeleev accepted today's masses. The approximate forty-year interval runs from 1869/1871 to 1913; "fudge" is interpretive wording, not a quoted contemporary judgment. - CONFIRMED | "The flagged cell is the anomaly that looked, for forty years, like a fudge." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Oxford](https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/highlights-archive/moseley-and-x-rays); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #159 (noteWeight-3): The primary lecture contrasts measured Te 128 with I 126.5 and insists on a lower Te weight to preserve the chemical arrangement. Thus chemical position overrode the reported measurement. It did not mean Mendeleev accepted today's masses. The approximate forty-year interval runs from 1869/1871 to 1913; "fudge" is interpretive wording, not a quoted contemporary judgment. - CONFIRMED | "Sorted by {n:atomic number} [...] the integer Moseley would measure in 1913 [...] every cell falls into place: tellurium (52) simply precedes iodine (53)." | [Oxford](https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/highlights-archive/moseley-and-x-rays); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #160 (noteNumber-1): Oxford identifies the fitted integer as atomic number Z and nuclear positive charge, "the number of protons" in modern language. Its discussion explicitly connects this to the Te/I ordering. Modern Te=52 and I=53 were checked in CIAAW. - CONFIRMED | "The chemistry had been right all along; atomic weight was the wrong ruler." | [Oxford](https://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/about-us/our-history/highlights-archive/moseley-and-x-rays); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #161 (noteNumber-2): Oxford identifies the fitted integer as atomic number Z and nuclear positive charge, "the number of protons" in modern language. Its discussion explicitly connects this to the Te/I ordering. Modern Te=52 and I=53 were checked in CIAAW. - CONFIRMED | "Kα1 energies: Kaye & Laby Online, Tables of Physical & Chemical Constants, 16th ed. (1995), §4.2.1. ν = E/h, h = 6.62607015×10⁻³⁴ J·s." | [Kaye-Laby](https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf); [NIST](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h) | #162 (xray-citation): The three-page Kaye and Laby table identifies the 16th edition (1995), section 4.2.1, online version 1.0 (2005). NIST gives h exactly 6.62607015 x 10^-34 J Hz^-1. Conversion of every listed energy to Hz was independently repeated. - CONFIRMED | "The line below is real: each dot is an element, plotted by the square root of its characteristic X-ray frequency." | [Kaye-Laby](https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [NIST](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h) | #163 (ka-Ca): Read the source table row Ca, Z=20, K-alpha-1=3.692 keV. It matches the embedded value. Recomputed frequency as E/h; modern mass 40.078 is consistent with the stated rounded CIAAW value. - CONFIRMED | "The line below is real: each dot is an element, plotted by the square root of its characteristic X-ray frequency." | [Kaye-Laby](https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [NIST](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h) | #164 (ka-Ti): Read the source table row Ti, Z=22, K-alpha-1=4.511 keV. It matches the embedded value. Recomputed frequency as E/h; modern mass 47.867 is consistent with the stated rounded CIAAW value. - CONFIRMED | "The line below is real: each dot is an element, plotted by the square root of its characteristic X-ray frequency." | [Kaye-Laby](https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [NIST](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h) | #165 (ka-Cr): Read the source table row Cr, Z=24, K-alpha-1=5.415 keV. It matches the embedded value. Recomputed frequency as E/h; modern mass 51.996 is consistent with the stated rounded CIAAW value. - CONFIRMED | "The line below is real: each dot is an element, plotted by the square root of its characteristic X-ray frequency." | [Kaye-Laby](https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [NIST](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h) | #166 (ka-Fe): Read the source table row Fe, Z=26, K-alpha-1=6.404 keV. It matches the embedded value. Recomputed frequency as E/h; modern mass 55.845 is consistent with the stated rounded CIAAW value. - CONFIRMED | "The line below is real: each dot is an element, plotted by the square root of its characteristic X-ray frequency." | [Kaye-Laby](https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [NIST](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h) | #167 (ka-Ni): Read the source table row Ni, Z=28, K-alpha-1=7.478 keV. It matches the embedded value. Recomputed frequency as E/h; modern mass 58.693 is consistent with the stated rounded CIAAW value. - CONFIRMED | "The line below is real: each dot is an element, plotted by the square root of its characteristic X-ray frequency." | [Kaye-Laby](https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [NIST](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h) | #168 (ka-Zn): Read the source table row Zn, Z=30, K-alpha-1=8.639 keV. It matches the embedded value. Recomputed frequency as E/h; modern mass 65.38 is consistent with the stated rounded CIAAW value. - CONFIRMED | "The line below is real: each dot is an element, plotted by the square root of its characteristic X-ray frequency." | [Kaye-Laby](https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [NIST](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h) | #169 (ka-Ge): Read the source table row Ge, Z=32, K-alpha-1=9.887 keV. It matches the embedded value. Recomputed frequency as E/h; modern mass 72.63 is consistent with the stated rounded CIAAW value. - CONFIRMED | "The line below is real: each dot is an element, plotted by the square root of its characteristic X-ray frequency." | [Kaye-Laby](https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [NIST](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h) | #170 (ka-Zr): Read the source table row Zr, Z=40, K-alpha-1=15.77 keV. It matches the embedded value. Recomputed frequency as E/h; modern mass 91.224 is consistent with the stated rounded CIAAW value. - CONFIRMED | "The line below is real: each dot is an element, plotted by the square root of its characteristic X-ray frequency." | [Kaye-Laby](https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [NIST](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h) | #171 (ka-Mo): Read the source table row Mo, Z=42, K-alpha-1=17.479 keV. It matches the embedded value. Recomputed frequency as E/h; modern mass 95.95 is consistent with the stated rounded CIAAW value. - CONFIRMED | "The line below is real: each dot is an element, plotted by the square root of its characteristic X-ray frequency." | [Kaye-Laby](https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [NIST](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h) | #172 (ka-Rh): Read the source table row Rh, Z=45, K-alpha-1=20.216 keV. It matches the embedded value. Recomputed frequency as E/h; modern mass 102.906 is consistent with the stated rounded CIAAW value. - CONFIRMED | "The line below is real: each dot is an element, plotted by the square root of its characteristic X-ray frequency." | [Kaye-Laby](https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [NIST](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h) | #173 (ka-Sn): Read the source table row Sn, Z=50, K-alpha-1=25.272 keV. It matches the embedded value. Recomputed frequency as E/h; modern mass 118.71 is consistent with the stated rounded CIAAW value. - CONFIRMED | "The line below is real: each dot is an element, plotted by the square root of its characteristic X-ray frequency." | [Kaye-Laby](https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [NIST](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h) | #174 (ka-Te): Read the source table row Te, Z=52, K-alpha-1=27.472 keV. It matches the embedded value. Recomputed frequency as E/h; modern mass 127.6 is consistent with the stated rounded CIAAW value. - CONFIRMED | "The line below is real: each dot is an element, plotted by the square root of its characteristic X-ray frequency." | [Kaye-Laby](https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf); [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm); [NIST](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h) | #175 (ka-I): Read the source table row I, Z=53, K-alpha-1=28.612 keV. It matches the embedded value. Recomputed frequency as E/h; modern mass 126.9 is consistent with the stated rounded CIAAW value. - CONFIRMED | "order by atomic weight" | [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #176 (order-Sb): CIAAW row Sb: atomic number 51; the page's mass 121.76 is the correctly rounded standard atomic weight. Sorting these five values reproduces the shown order. - CONFIRMED | "order by atomic weight" | [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #177 (order-Te): CIAAW row Te: atomic number 52; the page's mass 127.6 is the correctly rounded standard atomic weight. Sorting these five values reproduces the shown order. - CONFIRMED | "order by atomic weight" | [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #178 (order-I): CIAAW row I: atomic number 53; the page's mass 126.9 is the correctly rounded standard atomic weight. Sorting these five values reproduces the shown order. - CONFIRMED | "order by atomic weight" | [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #179 (order-Xe): CIAAW row Xe: atomic number 54; the page's mass 131.29 is the correctly rounded standard atomic weight. Sorting these five values reproduces the shown order. - CONFIRMED | "order by atomic weight" | [CIAAW](https://ciaaw.org/atomic-weights.htm) | #180 (order-Cs): CIAAW row Cs: atomic number 55; the page's mass 132.91 is the correctly rounded standard atomic weight. Sorting these five values reproduces the shown order. - CONFIRMED | "Lecoq first measured gallium's density as {big:4.7 g/cm³}" | https://www.redalyc.org/journal/1816/181676110008/181676110008.pdf | #191 (Ga-density-initial): The historical paper reproduces Lecoq's initial density 4.7 and his subsequent 5.935 result. Greenwood and Mendeleev's book independently preserve the initial 4.7. This is Lecoq's erroneous measurement, not a failed Mendeleev prediction. - CONFIRMED | "Mendeleev wrote back insisting the sample was impure and the true value would be near 5.9." | [Orna-Fontani](https://www.scribd.com/document/836554362/GIUNTA-2021-BOOK-150-Years-of-the-Periodic-Table-Symposium); [Mendeleev](https://www.dmitrimendeleev.com/p/the-principles-of-chemistry-volume-ii.html) | #192 (Ga-density-impurity): The source-record excerpt establishes later purification but does not quote the letter. Orna and Fontani (2021), p. 236, explicitly say he sent a letter and "informed Lecoq that his material was impure". This additional evidence supports the page's letter claim. - CONFIRMED | "modern hexagonal GeO₂ is 4.23." | [Faraday](https://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/mendel.html); [Winkler](https://www.chemteam.info/Chem-History/Disc-of-Germanium.html); [Teck](https://www.teck.com/media/Products-Germanium_Dioxide_Product_Data_Sheet.pdf) | #194 (Ge-oxide-modern): Winkler-era oxide density is 4.703, which rounds to 4.7. Teck's product sheet explicitly pairs "Density 4.23 g/cm3" with "Hexagonal (soluble) crystal structure". Winkler's primary report confirms the eka-silicium identification. The source record's Otto density excerpt alone does not establish crystal phase. - CONFIRMED | "It was {big:P. T. Cleve}, not the discoverer Nilson, who recognised the new oxide as eka-boron and wrote to tell Mendeleev." | [RSC-Sc](https://periodic-table.rsc.org/element/21/scandium); [Stewart](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10698-018-9312-0); [Orna-Fontani](https://www.scribd.com/document/836554362/GIUNTA-2021-BOOK-150-Years-of-the-Periodic-Table-Symposium) | #196 (Sc-cleve-letter): RSC and Stewart credit Cleve with recognizing the correspondence. Orna and Fontani (2021), p. 241, quote his letter of 19 August 1879: "your element eka-boron has been isolated. It is scandium". The letter claim is supported by that additional source; the recorded RSC/Stewart excerpts alone omit the letter. The approximately nine percent error is reproduced. - CONFIRMED | "Kα1 energies: Kaye & Laby Online, Tables of Physical & Chemical Constants, 16th ed. (1995), §4.2.1. ν = E/h, h = 6.62607015×10⁻³⁴ J·s." | [Kaye-Laby](https://www.physics.utoronto.ca/apl/xrf/APPENDIX%20A.pdf); [NIST](https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?h) | #200 (planck-constant): The three-page Kaye and Laby table identifies the 16th edition (1995), section 4.2.1, online version 1.0 (2005). NIST gives h exactly 6.62607015 x 10^-34 J Hz^-1. Conversion of every listed energy to Hz was independently repeated. ## Findings - [fixed] X1 (MINOR; uniform-four-neighbour-average): Stewart says eka-boron relied mainly on calcium and titanium; Principles II, ch. XV, pp. 24–26 also gives a four-neighbour mean. Changed the generalisation to interpolation from available neighbours and analogues, sometimes averaging four. - [fixed] X2 (MINOR; scandium-isolation-wording): RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - [fixed] X3 (MINOR; moseley-sample-scope): Moseley (1913), p. 1029, reports twelve elements examined. HTML now says a series of elements; markdown says each element in his sample. - [fixed] X4 (MINOR; moseley-exact-line-wording): Oxford describes nearly linear plots and slight departures from linearity. Both prose copies and the fit caption now say nearly straight; the measured fit is unchanged. - [fixed] X5 (MINOR; historical-source-coverage): All four MISSES objects lacked source fields. Added the references read for each historical account, rendered source links beneath each caveat, and linked the colophon pointer to those references and the downloadable canonical dataset. - [fixed] X6 (MINOR; historical-source-coverage): All four MISSES objects lacked source fields. Added the references read for each historical account, rendered source links beneath each caveat, and linked the colophon pointer to those references and the downloadable canonical dataset. - [fixed] X7 (MINOR; moseley-sample-scope): Moseley (1913), p. 1029, reports twelve elements examined. HTML now says a series of elements; markdown says each element in his sample. - [fixed] X8 (MINOR; moseley-source-pairing): The 1889 Faraday lecture excerpt did not support the metadata’s 1913 claim. Replaced N1 meta-description-4 with Oxford’s nuclear-charge explanation and a Moseley (1913) reference. The supported page explanation remains. - [fixed] X9 (WRONG; eka-false-meaning): Principles II, ch. XV, p. 25 defines eka as one and names the next analogue. Corrected the open-graph gloss and aligned the description and JSON-LD wording; added the lexical correction in HTML and markdown. - [fixed] X10 (WRONG; gallium-melting-prediction-date): Scerri (2007), table 5.1, p. 133 dates low melting to 1875; Greenwood and Earnshaw, table 7.2, p. 217 groups it under 1871; Lecoq (1877) describes a conflict with the theory. Qualified the card, comparison, inherited headings and general date labels with the disagreement, retained 29.76 °C, and removed the unsupported anticipation of difficulty keeping it solid. One shared correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - [fixed] X11 (WRONG; gallium-melting-prediction-date): Scerri (2007), table 5.1, p. 133 dates low melting to 1875; Greenwood and Earnshaw, table 7.2, p. 217 groups it under 1871; Lecoq (1877) describes a conflict with the theory. Qualified the card, comparison, inherited headings and general date labels with the disagreement, retained 29.76 °C, and removed the unsupported anticipation of difficulty keeping it solid. One shared correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - [fixed] X12 (WRONG; gallium-density-error-attribution): Greenwood and Earnshaw p. 217 assigns the initial 4.7 to Lecoq; Lecoq (1877) reports a later mean of 5.935 confirming Mendeleev. Rewrote the footnote around Lecoq’s challenged measurement without claiming an only error or inferring a cause. One shared correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - [fixed] X13 (WRONG; germanium-historical-density): Winkler (1886) reports P. Mann’s specific gravity as 5.469 at 20.4 °C. Replaced the historical 5.35 input and citation; error is approximately +0.5668%, displayed +0.6%, with seven of nine still within 3%. NIST table 1 separately supports the retained modern 5.323. One shared correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - [fixed] X14 (WRONG; germanium-historical-density): Winkler (1886) reports P. Mann’s specific gravity as 5.469 at 20.4 °C. Replaced the historical 5.35 input and citation; error is approximately +0.5668%, displayed +0.6%, with seven of nine still within 3%. NIST table 1 separately supports the retained modern 5.323. One shared correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - [fixed] X15 (MINOR; germanium-acid-comparison-wording): The Bates chemical-properties row distinguishes slight attack by HCl in the prediction from no dissolution by HCl in the measured description. Restored that difference, removed the identical-result check mark, and added its citation. - [fixed] X16 (MINOR; scandium-isolation-wording): RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - [fixed] X17 (MINOR; scandium-isolation-wording): RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - [fixed] X18 (MINOR; scandium-isolation-wording): RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - [fixed] X19 (MINOR; scandium-isolation-wording): RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - [fixed] X20 (MINOR; scandium-isolation-wording): RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - [fixed] X21 (MINOR; scandium-isolation-wording): RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - [fixed] X22 (MINOR; scandium-isolation-wording): RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - [fixed] X23 (MINOR; coronium-resolution-chronology): Swings (1943), p. 116 dates Edlén’s first privately communicated list to June 1939; note 1 cites 1941 and 1942 publications. The page and both N1 source pairs now distinguish those stages. Milne (1945), p. 144 supports the green-line identification as Fe XIV. This is precision, not STALE. - [fixed] X24 (WRONG; technetium-natural-absence): RSC distinguishes the loss of primordial technetium from trace natural production by uranium fission. Corrected the caveat, status and markdown summary, retaining 1937 synthesis; updated the verifier’s description and assertion. The correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - [fixed] X25 (WRONG; kak-doubt-misattribution): Kak (2004), section 3, pp. 8–9 doubts specific Śiva Sutras influence, favours the ordinary alphabet, and endorses the broader Sanskrit homage. Corrected the scope of doubt while retaining conjectural status; the correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - [fixed] X26 (MINOR; modern-masses-source-pairing): CIAAW gives Te 127.60 and I 126.90447, supporting the displayed 127.6 and 126.9. Replaced the mismatched historical excerpt in N1 noteWeight-1 with those rows; retained both page values. - [open note:1c6ba4] X28 (WRONG; incommensurable-continuum-description): Eka's relation and mirrored dated correction accurately describe the parity proof that √2 is irrational. The false continuum description remains without correction metadata in notes[382] at public/strata/there-here/index.html:250 and research/lineage-edge-grammar/page.json:1. Another layer needs the existing copy-correction mechanism to annotate the preserved historical quotation and mirror the dated endnote. The directing instance must obtain a board note and replace PENDING with its issued id. - [fixed] X29 (MINOR; scandium-isolation-wording): RSC History distinguishes Nilson’s 1879 oxide from scandium metal made in 1937. The comparison introduction now says discovery and analysis; the shared heading says oxide isolated in 1879 by Nilson. All nine repeated heading findings share that repair. - [fixed] X30 (WRONG; gallium-density-error-attribution): Greenwood and Earnshaw p. 217 assigns the initial 4.7 to Lecoq; Lecoq (1877) reports a later mean of 5.935 confirming Mendeleev. Rewrote the footnote around Lecoq’s challenged measurement without claiming an only error or inferring a cause. One shared correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - [fixed] X31 (WRONG; germanium-historical-density): Winkler (1886) reports P. Mann’s specific gravity as 5.469 at 20.4 °C. Replaced the historical 5.35 input and citation; error is approximately +0.5668%, displayed +0.6%, with seven of nine still within 3%. NIST table 1 separately supports the retained modern 5.323. One shared correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. - [fixed] X32 (MINOR; coronium-resolution-chronology): Swings (1943), p. 116 dates Edlén’s first privately communicated list to June 1939; note 1 cites 1941 and 1942 publications. The page and both N1 source pairs now distinguish those stages. Milne (1945), p. 144 supports the green-line identification as Fe XIV. This is precision, not STALE. - [fixed] X33 (MINOR; moseley-fit-scale-label): The plot computes sqrt(freqHz)/1e8. Both axis modes now print the fitted quantity as √(ν/Hz)/10⁸ in the shared equation and y-axis label. Coefficients and R² are unchanged. - [fixed] X34 (MINOR; moseley-fit-scale-label): The plot computes sqrt(freqHz)/1e8. Both axis modes now print the fitted quantity as √(ν/Hz)/10⁸ in the shared equation and y-axis label. Coefficients and R² are unchanged. - [fixed] X35 (WRONG; coronium-row-zero): I read Mendeleev’s 1904 table reproduced as Stewart figure 2: x/newtonium is in series zero; y/coronium is in series one alongside hydrogen. The caveat title now attaches the unchanged quoted phrase only to newtonium and gives coronium row one. The correction is mirrored in HTML and markdown. ## Verification and limits The authored data were regenerated by the fixer with research/eka/build-page.mjs, including eka’s two already-published source copies under public/checks/research/eka/. The verifier’s unconditional tolerance assertion is replaced by arithmetic, its seven-of-nine assertion is exact, and a new assertion checks the visible headline. The build now verifies the new embedded data before publishing a green count and leaves a null count if verification fails. JSON-LD dateModified is 2026-10-14; this revision date needs no Updated line. The fixer's detailed run results, every edit and the exact correction lines are recorded in research/assay-line/queue-1014c/eka/fix-report.md. The subsequent repair review and its outstanding X28 handoff are recorded in research/assay-line/queue-1014c/eka/repair-report.md. The wider N2 findings outside this triage are not silently treated as resolved by this record.