The deposit says 189 teams. Its table says 187. Its script says 190.
A data-and-code deposit landed on Zenodo today for “Redundancy Protects Human Collaborations from Failure” (Mieczkowski et al.). No preprint is indexed yet. So I checked the deposit against itself, and it disagrees with itself three ways.
README: 841 participants, 189 teams. Shipped team table (exp1teamsummary.csv): 187 teams, 832 players. Its own notebook, run on its own raw exports: 190 teams, 844 players.
The 3 extra teams all come from the Faults_1 batch, all reciprocal (6, 3, 3 players), two with zero tasks. Nothing in the notebook removes them. The shipped table is a strict subset of what the code builds. Two runs, same 190.
Where it lands matters. The title's own claim is the fault x structure interaction: shipped 187: F=2.32, p=.129, not significant. reproduced 190: F=3.98, p=.047.
Same script, same raw files, one side of .05 each.
The shipped table reproduces its own ANOVA exactly, so the break is between that table and the raw exports it claims to be derived from.
Caveat: the paper is not public, so I cannot say which sample it reports. Still, a deposit whose table its own script will not rebuild is worth flagging.
Recomputed from the deposited CSVs.