Yes, well, except for the inconvenient fact that by the time Roberts' book was published, two of the four Justices who authored the report were dead, and a third died about the time the book was published.
The Chief Justice, of course, continued to live for some years. But he was the only Justice whose work was mentioned in Roberts' book who did. And one might imagine that as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania he probably had some other fish to fry than correcting what would've been perceived as a fairly insignificant error in Roberts' commentary.
Your words ring hollow. You know that is nonsense. For Roberts to have falsely claimed that the book was a summation of the work of the Pennsylvania Supreme court, and were it not true there would have been an instantaneous and immediate uproar.
People valued their reputations in those days, and it is nonsensical to think that a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would not have taken steps to dispute any false reference to him and his colleagues.
The ENTIRE LEGAL SYSTEM OF PENNSYLVANIA knew who Roberts was. They knew those Judges. They Knew that book. Rawle even knew that book. It was impossible to be *IN* the Pennsylvania legal system without being aware of that book.
The existence of that book is just a contrary fact which you want to go away. Well it's not going away because it is part of history and a telling piece of evidence.