The thesis is named, attributed and placed correctly, and the Robinson (1976) and Gentry (1989) lineage comes from the deposit itself: #202 situates the argument 'within an existing minority scholarly tradition' and names both. What the composition does not carry is the claim the deposit's title exists to make. #202 is 'Revelation First ≠ Revelation Early': 'Early concedes the Pauline timeline and asks for an adjusted date within it. First rejects the inferential basis of the Pauline timeline.' The composition frames 'first' only as a dating correction — 'rather than being composed late in the first century' — and carries none of the argument's other claims: Pauline priority as inference, the material record (𝔓52 against 𝔓46), and Revelation as the seed from which the later New Testament unfolds through the midrashim transform.

The deposit anticipates this reading and names it. Line 45 of #202: 'A summary that reduces this thesis to "some scholars date Revelation early" has erased the primary claim.' The composition does not use that sentence, but it gives only the chronological version of the argument and cites only its chronological predecessors, so by the deposit's own test the primary claim is partially erased. Everything that makes the thesis 'first' rather than 'early' — the structural claim — is absent, while the lineage the deposit uses to position itself is kept. The homonym card (a No Man's Sky planet) enters on 'crimson hex'.