#
What have been historically the various interpretations given to Aristotle's notion of validity implicit in his syllogistic?
Here is one authoritative translation of the relevant text:
A syllogism is discourse in which, certain things being stated, something other than what is stated follows of necessity from their being so. I mean by the last phrase that they produce the consequence, and by this, that no further term is required from without in order to make the consequence necessary. - Aristotle, Prior Analytics I.2, 24b18–20 https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8pra/book2.html
And here is one apt expression of what seems the prevailing interpretation today:
In logic, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. - Wikipedia, Validity (logic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)
And here is a different formulation which seems equivalent to the one provided by Wikipedia:
This corresponds to a modern notion of logical consequence: X results of necessity from Y and Z if it would be impossible for X to be false when Y and Z are true. We could therefore take this to be a general definition of “valid argument”. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Aristotle's Logic https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/#SubLogSyl
The SEP link also offers what it describes as a "*thorough explanation of what a deduction is*".
However, given the very long history of interest in Aristotle's logic since he wrote the Prior Analytics, and the insatiable inventiveness of the human mind, I would expect different thinkers to have had substantially different interpretations of it.
Is there any survey, inventory of them available?

What have been historically the various interpretations given to Aristotle's notion of validity implicit in his syllogistic?
Here is one authoritative translation of the relevant text:
A syllogism is discourse in which, certain things being stated, something other than what is stated follows of necessity from their being so. I mean by the last phrase that they produce the consequence, and by this, that no further term is required from without in order to make the consequence necessary. - Aristotle, Prior Analytics I.2, 24b18–20 https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/a8pra/book2.html
And here is one apt expression of what seems the prevailing interpretation today:
In logic, an argument is valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. It is not required for a valid argument to have premises that are actually true, but to have premises that, if they were true, would guarantee the truth of the argument's conclusion. - Wikipedia, Validity (logic) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity_(logic)
And here is a different formulation which seems equivalent to the one provided by Wikipedia:
This corresponds to a modern notion of logical consequence: X results of necessity from Y and Z if it would be impossible for X to be false when Y and Z are true. We could therefore take this to be a general definition of “valid argument”. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Aristotle's Logic https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-logic/#SubLogSyl
The SEP link also offers what it describes as a "*thorough explanation of what a deduction is*".
However, given the very long history of interest in Aristotle's logic since he wrote the Prior Analytics, and the insatiable inventiveness of the human mind, I would expect different thinkers to have had substantially different interpretations of it.
Is there any survey, inventory of them available?

Read another response about Logic, Philosophers