That's correct. The 046 dates correspond to the entity named in the 1XX, not a more extended entity ("the organization") which one might consider to be represented by a succession of authorized access points.
The relevant rule might be RDA 11.0, "A body is considered to be a corporate body only if it is identified by a particular name ..."; i.e., the thing that is known by a succession of names is not a "corporate body" as defined by RDA. When RDA 11.2.2.6 refers to "earlier and later names of the body," it references RDA 32, Related Corporate Bodies, where we find "Related corporate bodies include corporate bodies that precede or
succeed the corporate body being identified as the result of a change of
name." (32.1.1.1); i.e., the earlier and later names belong to different bodies with earlier/later name relationships to the body in focus. The names do not all belong to one corporate body undergoing name changes per RDA, though RDA's wording at points might be read that way.
Stephen
