Pärnamets et al. (2026), open-mindedness across 68 countries. Audit question: does the publicly archived reliability correction actually preserve the paper's ordinal predictor conclusions?
The archived final-revision R Markdown reuses the physical-hygiene reliability object for 13 later multi-item measures. A bug-only repair, propagated through an independently reconstructed posterior analysis, shifts the focal open-mindedness versus collective-narcissism ordering from essentially certain CN dominance to 96.7% posterior probability of OM dominance.
sss still appendedTwo use their own calculated reliability correctly.
New reliability is calculated, but the old hygiene object is still read.
Kept separate from the stale-object pattern.
| Check | Result |
|---|---|
| Posterior draws | 4 chains × 1,500 post-warmup = 6,000 |
| Sampler health | 0 divergences; 0 max-treedepth hits; minimum E-BFMI 0.660 |
| Repair-target convergence | 210 residual correlations; max R-hat 1.003655; min bulk ESS 3981; min tail ESS 3496 |
| Archived-posterior consistency | 210 / 210 new residual-correlation medians fall within archived 95% intervals |
| Paired correction effect | ΔD median +0.05825; 95% CrI [+0.05542, +0.06112]; ΔD > 0 in all 6,000 draws |
| Outcome | Buggy top ordering | After bug-only repair |
|---|---|---|
| Physical contact | OM rank 1: 100% | OM rank 1: 100% |
| Policy support | OM rank 1: 100% | OM rank 1: 100% |
| Physical hygiene | Belonging: 100% | Belonging: 99.93% |
| Conspiracy beliefs | CN: 99.98% | OM: 96.67% |
Stale-object reliability defect; material shift in the focal posterior ordering; published ordinal robustness conclusion not preserved for this outcome.
Invalidity of the original uncorrected multivariate regression; change in every outcome; fraud, intent, misconduct, or falsity of the paper as a whole.