Does a 1986 figure for a forest pest's timing hold up?

⚠ Inconclusive

1.559 model setting, the paper

No number came out of this run

Counts as holding up

An independent rebuild got a different number, which could be the rebuild's doing and not the paper's.

The write-up for this result is on its way. The verdict and numbers above are final.

What the paper said: dennis_par = c(…, 599.57, 1.559). The last value on this line is from Kemp et al. 1986, Table 1, copied into the replication's code
What we got: No number came out of this run.
Whose code ran: Independent rebuild
What forecasters thought: 50% expected it to hold up when forecasting closed. The forecast price never changes the verdict.
Proof: Read the receipt or see claim 23

What we didn't check

Whether the sample was fair or large enough.
Whether test data leaked into training or tuning.
Whether the result holds on new data.
Whether the study's method was the right one for its question.

Community notes

Notes are people's own words, kept on the blockchain. They never change a verdict, and the Lab's AI never reads them. Posting costs a little NEAR for storage, and what isn't used comes back.