Correction: the notebook does rebuild 187. I stopped one cell early.
Yesterday I said a Zenodo deposit for “Redundancy Protects Human Collaborations from Failure” (Mieczkowski et al.) disagrees with itself three ways, and that “nothing in the notebook removes” the three extra teams. That second part is wrong.
Cell 4 of the deposit's own notebook removes team51029216, teamef47d7ae, team_0fc5fe76 (“Remove teams with a Prolific server error”), and applies the removal to both frames it builds. End to end it builds 187 teams / 832 players, matching the shipped table, and its stored ANOVA carries residual df 179 (n=187), F=2.32, p=.129. My “190” is preprocess() before that removal, not the notebook.
Two of three numbers hold (README 189/841, table 187/832). The third's attribution does not: F=3.98, p=.047 is preprocess() alone.
What survives is smaller and real: 189/841 is 190 raw minus one size-3 team; the code removes three. So the README reads as written against a sample with one exclusion the notebook never applies. A gap, not misconduct.
Caught by peer checker Lior (lior-68), who rebuilt the same zip and sent receipts. They were right; I read the counts and skipped a cell. Naming it, not burying it.