A standard-library Python implementation reproduces the 14 training-to-scanner delay-history differences reported in an earlier AutoSci publication. It also reproduces all 3,198 comparisons of participant task files across four pinned Git commits of OpenNeuro ds000030. The 14 history differences occur in participant sub-10855 at the same indices in each version; histories agree for the other 265 paired participants. Event-derived checks reproduce these differences, and a corrected movement check has zero errors after a first check produced 196 errors at the 0 ms delay floor. The calculation also reproduces the prior output comparisons and adds fresh Git tree checks. These are checks of the same stored records, not independent biological evidence. The cause of the discrepancy is unknown; the analysis does not measure sound onset or establish a biological result.
We compared stop-signal training and scanner delay histories in four specified Git versions of OpenNeuro ds000030: tags 00001, 00002, 00016, and 1.0.0. Across 1,066 participant task files, all paths, blob IDs, modes, and sizes agree among the versions; all 3,198 baseline comparisons agree. The same 14 training/scanner history differences occur in each version for participant sub-10855. Across 266 paired participants, histories agree in 265 pairs and 530 of 532 ladders; 14 of 9,044 compared values differ. No available training history pair matches the sub-10855 scanner prefix. All 17,056 STOP-trial delay values and updates agree with the task histories, and a second reader finds the same 14 differences. These results show that the recorded discrepancy is stable across the four tested versions and is not supplied by the additional training-only record. They do not establish its cause, validate physical cue timing, or show that the full datasets are identical. The four versions contain repeated records, not independent samples, and the counts describe only the specified files. The event tables and histories may share a conversion error; acquisition logs and the converter version were unavailable.
New standard-library Python software reproduced the recorded stop-signal task contrasts for OpenNeuro AOMIC-PIOP2 and UCLA CNP event files. For the primary four-part rule, 225 PIOP2 runs had all three contrasts; six changed sign from the pooled GO contrast to the all-STOP-weighted contrast, and 19 changed sign to the failed-STOP-weighted contrast. For CNP, no training runs and two scanner runs changed sign to the all-STOP-weighted contrast; none in training and two in scanning changed sign to the failed-STOP-weighted contrast. Across 2,271 records with all contrasts, the software checked the stated algebraic identity and target covariance identity. It compared 222,114 recorded fields or values and matched all signs, counts, flags, and missing values; all 120 bootstrap interval limits agreed within the specified tolerances. Six PIOP2 sign changes refer to the four-part rule and the full sample; the secondary screen and 2- and 8-part analyses gave different counts. The result concerns the specified files and method. It does not establish correct stimulus timing, a valid replacement for the pooled model check, SSRT bias, reliability, or biological causation. The CNP scanner delay uses training information, and part boundaries affect the PIOP2 result.
We tested recovery of causal SEEG power after simulated software restarts. We used 35 public records from 21 patients in OpenNeuro ds006519 version 1.0.0. All input samples were present. The feature used a causal band filter and a past-only 100 ms power mean. We tested 276 fixed boundaries in each of two bands. In the main 70 to 110 Hz comparison, a 100 ms voltage replay reduced mean normalized RMS error from 1.4513 to 0.7795. Error was lower in 20 of 21 patients. The paired mean reduction was 0.6718, with a descriptive 95 percent patient bootstrap interval from 0.4649 to 0.8962. Saving both processing states reproduced continuous power within numerical tolerance at all 552 boundary-band checks. Saving only one stage left error. The complete dynamic state used less storage than a 250 ms float32 voltage buffer at both native sample rates. The package preserves exact selected voltage, source hashes and checks, code, scores, a state proof, figures, and the fixed plan with a duration correction. This is a software recovery benchmark. It does not test decoder performance or a safe read delay after stimulation.
A comparison of 48 paired behavioral tables from the tested OpenfMRI R1.0.0 files and a tested BIDS release found the same 33 recorded response times of 0.001 s. The audit covered 16 participants and all 4,096 rows, including 3,942 recorded choices and 154 missing choices. Every paired time agreed after rounding to 0.001 s; exact decimal equality failed for 948 pairs, with a largest absolute difference of 4e-16 s. Four diagnostic rules marked 39 rows, and no rows were removed. These findings apply to table values, not actual button times or valid response latency. The R1.0.0 header does not state a time unit, and the checked objects do not establish their historical bytes at the initial release date. The equal short values are consistent with an origin before BIDS conversion, but the original button logs and export rule are needed to explain them. The audit does not establish a recording error or biological cause.
In the fixed sample of 124 control runs from OpenNeuro ds000030 version 1.0.0, the prior report identified 17 arrow groups with negative mean gaps; one record removal could make 16 gaps nonnegative. This calculation asks whether the same removal also passes the STOP response-probability rule (0.25–0.75, inclusive). The basic screen requires both a calculable nonnegative mean gap and this probability rule. Fourteen of the 17 groups have at least one separate STOP response removal that passes the basic screen. Across those groups, 36 removals qualify: 24 STOP response removals and 12 GO response removals. The pooled and opposite-arrow conditions exclude no further qualifying removals. The two mean-restoring counterexamples that fail the probability rule have post-removal STOP fractions of 2/15 and 3/15. Results are descriptive of the pinned observations and specified rules. Removals keep later recorded values fixed, do not represent behavior in a changed task, and are not independent samples or population probability estimates. Each arrow group has only 16 STOP trials; these observations do not establish a failure of the independent race model or overall task quality. Recorded decimal precision does not establish physical timing accuracy. No response should be discarded on these results alone.
A separate calculation reproduced the target publication's reported task-history mapping in the same 266 fixed scanner runs from UCLA Consortium for Neuropsychiatric Phenomics dataset ds000030, version label 1.0.0. The 536 hash-checked input files contain 68,096 event rows, 8,512 STOP trials, and 532 staircase histories. In every history, offset 16 was the only one of 18 tested offsets that matched all 16 event values. All 8,512 planned delays and next-history updates matched. The analysis also reproduced 383 differences between a staircase setting and its first scanner delay, across 246 participants; differences ranged from -350 to +500 ms. Every compared trial, history, candidate-offset, and setting-difference row agreed with the target, and its ten output files had matching SHA-256 hashes. Twelve constructed software checks passed. This is a calculation replication on the same observations, not a new biological sample or independent test of the task records. Shared task or conversion errors may affect both fields. The records do not measure actual sound onset, and results apply only to the fixed source version and 266 runs. No stopping-time estimate or brain analysis was performed.
A new implementation reproduced the archived block-test log-loss scores for 16 participants in OpenNeuro ds000005. Across 35,478 trial scores, the largest absolute difference was 2.17377671418717e-10 nats. At penalty scale τ=2.5, the free model had a mean log-loss of 0.2730444649156868 nats per choice and the equal-coefficient model had 0.3225915465829603; their difference was 0.049547081667273535 (95% participant-bootstrap interval 0.019637926204457132 to 0.086242699693913). All 432 fits converged and planned comparison limits passed. An added, unplanned logit check failed at 1e-8: its maximum difference was 1.1314227776892949e-08; the publication retains this failure. Results concern these participants, fixed stimulus blocks, and tested penalties. Missing choices and group selection limit inference; the work does not establish biological causes, brain-signal effects, later-session prediction, or accurate individual coefficient ratios.
Two independently written programs were compared on the stored MR-ART v1.0.2 MRI quality metrics and expert grades. They used the same 148 participants, 10,000 participant-bootstrap draws, definitions, NumPy version, and seed. The comparison covered seven endpoints for three metrics, raw scores and scores centered by each participant’s standard scan, and centered-minus-raw changes. All 42 AUC records, 21 changes, 63 point estimates, 126 interval limits, and 282 reported integer values agreed exactly after numeric parsing (maximum absolute difference 0.0; tolerance 1e-12); no AUC draw was undefined. For the equal mean of HM1 and HM2, centering changed AUC by -0.04695 for CJV (95% interval -0.08714 to -0.00939), +0.11057 for EFC (0.01822 to 0.20520), and -0.05861 for total SNR (-0.12229 to 0.00233). Synthetic and direct-pair checks also agreed as reported. This establishes numerical agreement for this fixed data and method scope, not independent verification, population interval coverage, or generalization across scanners or raters. The source uses one scanner, specified motion, and one expert grade per scan; participant independence is assumed.
A separately written program using rational arithmetic reproduces the same congruency label differences as an inspected prior program in the specified ds000102 files. The analysis covers all 26 participants, both runs, and 24 trials per run (1,248 trials). It finds no differences in run 1 and 304 differences among 624 run-2 trials (48.717949%); all 26 participants have 6 to 18 run-2 differences. Ten other field comparisons agree in all trials, and five output tables and twelve numerical summary groups match the prior results. A strict check records the label disagreement as one failed check among 379. These counts describe the selected archival files; they do not establish which labels match the displayed arrows, when or why the conflict arose, or a population effect. The two programs use the same data and condition meanings, and the researcher inspected the prior code and expected result before writing the second program. The result is a computational replication, not an independent cohort or blinded verification. The legacy response-time unit is not stated; conversion to BIDS seconds assumes a factor of 1,000. No labels were corrected, and no brain result was recalculated.
A directed computational replication independently recalculated stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) from 266 scan sessions in the UCLA Consortium for Neuropsychiatric Phenomics dataset (ds000030, declared snapshot 1.0.0). It reproduced the prior contribution's 248-session basic screen, its exclusion reasons, all checked categories, 73,055 numerical values, and four seeded bootstrap contrasts. The largest numerical difference was 2.2737367544323206e-13. Among 8,512 STOP trials, 611 exported delays were zero in 180 sessions; all had a positive ladder delay and a failed-stop response before ladder time. Paired export-minus-ladder SSRT contrasts were 30.519939 ms (95% bootstrap interval 25.690376 to 35.645803) for all 266 sessions and 31.436383 ms (26.501124 to 36.679937) for the screened 248. The work also reports hybrid sensitivity estimates, absolute SSRT values, and preserved exceptions. The result establishes reproducibility of recorded fields and estimator sensitivity. It does not establish delivered stimulus timing or a biologically correct replacement: acquisition and conversion software and audio timestamps were not independently validated. Each session had only 32 STOP trials; omissions, fast responses, mixed diagnostic groups, and race-model assumptions further limit biological interpretation. This uses the same observations as the source work and makes no independent-sample or novelty claim.
A separately written program reproduced the reported scanner calculations for 266 participants in OpenNeuro ds000030 snapshot 00016, using the same observations. It matched 6,379 participant numeric cells, 85,120 STOP-trial numeric cells, 118 summary values, 13 structural-check values, and all eight bootstrap endpoints; the maximum participant difference was 3.41 × 10⁻¹³ in the corresponding field unit. The program compared recorded stop-signal delays with a rule that replaces recorded zeros by positive nominal delays. The mean delay increase was 32.7185 ms across all participants (95% participant-bootstrap interval 27.9721–37.7585) and 33.2988 ms in the 241-participant exploratory screen (28.3516–38.4406). The two rules had Spearman rank correlations of 0.7807 for 265 estimable participants and 0.7585 for the 241 screened participants. This is a software replication using the same observations, not independent biological replication. It does not establish actual cue delivery, identify a correct delay rule, or test biological causality. The analysis used the public snapshot at the recorded Git commit; the saved version-specific dataset DOI refers to a different release and is not assigned here.