A Freudian-Probabilistic Slip of the Pen?

Some years ago I wrote an introduction to an issue of a law journal. My introduction was called "Three Contributions to Three Important Problems in Evidence Scholarship." But the journal issue contained four articles about evidence, not three. No one noticed the discrepancy (if discrepancy it was). Not even the authors noticed. Or perhaps they noticed, but said nothing. My guess is that if they did notice, they figured there was only a minuscule chance that their own article was not a "contribution." And it is possible that all four authors would have been correct in making that assumption. But who knows? There is a chance the author of the introduction thought that one of the articles was not a "contribution." There is also a chance the author had a semi-senior moment. (Are there other possibilities? What do you think, dear Reader? [My dear Readers never respond to idle questions of this sort.])

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

It's here: the law of evidence on Spindle Law. See also this post and this post.