Lately, after all, I tried to write an answer to a previous comment but found I could not because of the limited three subquotes.
So generally, Sartre is still holding the infinite reduction at bay, through reducing to the point where things makes sense via a bracketing. He is still holding to Descartes’ notion of thinking being (thinking of Being) , rather then the Nothingness of an infinite existentially reduced precept. As it turns out, such would prove contrary phenomenologically and here he could/would say Non cogiti non sum, or where I can not think, I do not exist,
One cannot think in nihilism, the child’s fear of the abyss, the dark is where he can not see himself" and thus know himself as an existent. Here he doesnt exist.
Nihilism is an all consuming idea of a death, which may turn out to be a perceptual illusion.
I agree with the above of the existence of the correlation as consisting of sufficient logical necessity, but at a certain level below the reduction of the phenomenon, it looses its structural basis.
I will try to make this comment more sufficiently substantial, as I review the comments above in which the relevance were confirmed by both of you.
Russell’s precept or sense data held the way Descartes’ and did. Nietzsche showed that prophetically, ironically after the fact.