Question: Lorenz-Spreen et al. (2019) reported faster collective attention on several platforms. Earlier SCI studies found slower, not faster, attention in English Wikipedia daily top lists, and no clear trend in most other editions with all-access lists. We asked if top-list turnover changed in ten editions, and which part of the list change causes the trend. Data: Wikimedia Pageviews API daily top-1000 lists (agent = user), all-access and mobile-web, for en, de, fr, es, ja, ru, it, pt, zh and pl Wikipedia, every available day 2015-07-01 to 2026-09-30 (about 80 million rows). Method: we removed non-article pages and 'resident' articles (in the top 100 on 25% or more of the days in a year; these include long-lasting probable automated pages). Then we calculated daily top-k turnover (k = 10, 50, 100), entrants (first-time or returning within 365 days), stay lengths, and the median daily absolute log change of views. We fitted linear trends to 10 annual values per edition and pooled them with random effects. Results: mobile-web top-50 turnover decreased in 9 of 10 editions (p < 0.05 each; 4 after Holm correction). The pooled trend was -0.71 percentage points per year (95% CI -0.92 to -0.50). Japanese did not change (-0.01, CI -0.39 to +0.37). For the top 10 and top 50, no edition increased in any list variant. All-access lists gave weaker decreases. Returning entrants per day decreased from 17.6 to 14.7 (mean of editions; decrease in all 10 editions, significant in 9). First-time entrants did not decrease (11.6 to 12.3; pooled +0.09 per year, CI +0.04 to +0.14). The total days in the top 50 per article had no pooled trend, but stays were longer and more continuous. Daily view volatility of top-50 articles decreased in 7 editions and did not change in Japanese. Its trend agreed with the turnover trend across editions (Spearman 0.81, p = 0.005). In a fixed-effects model, it accounted for 77% of the mean turnover decrease. The decrease was largest in 2016-2020, and it continued after the April 2020 change in bot labels (-0.51 pp per year, CI -0.76 to -0.26). Limitations: top 1000 only, daily resolution, Wikimedia 'user' traffic, possible residual automated traffic (no app-consistency filter), descriptive decomposition, and no causal test.
Question: does the death of a public figure durably change attention to their English Wikipedia article? Earlier work compares views after death with the same person's views before death. Method: Wikidata humans who died 2016-07 to 2021-12 with >=12 sitelinks; daily user pageviews 2015-07 to 2026-09 from the Wikimedia API (3,350 deceased and 2,750 living series, random interleaved download with a fixed stopping rule). Each deceased person with >=20 views/day in days -365 to -31 was matched to 5 living people with the same occupation group and gender, a near birth year and the nearest pre-death views on the same calendar days. Effect = change in log mean views of the deceased minus that of the controls. Placebo: one control against 5 other living people. Results (n = 1,517): the year-1 median ratio was 2.36 (95% CI 2.26-2.46). The decay follows c + a t^-b with b = 1.51 (better than exponential models by AIC). For years 2-4 (pre-specified primary outcome) the median effect was +0.009 log units (-0.020 to +0.035); the placebo gave -0.004. A self-baseline without controls gave +3% to +4% per year, because the matched controls also increased. 9.0% of people were above the placebo 95th percentile and 8.6% below its 5th percentile, so death made long-run attention more dispersed. The effect decreased by 0.113 per 10 years of age at death and was higher for anglophone citizens (+0.114) and for arts than for leaders or sports. Mean year-2 effects by age band (<60: +0.35; 60-74: +0.11; 75-84: +0.06; >=85: -0.11) replicate SCI 2c5f9052, an independent study with a different sample. Effects in years 5-9 were negative (-0.04 to -0.13), but this depends on age matching: for the oldest people the controls were younger, and controls were selected on present-day Wikidata status. Limitations: selection on 2026 sitelinks in both arms, few well-matched controls above age 85, title-based counts, and bootstrap intervals that ignore control reuse.
Question: did the turnover of the most viewed English Wikipedia articles become faster at a weekly time scale from 2013 to 2026, in particular in 2013-2016, when Lorenz-Spreen et al. (2019) found faster attention on Twitter (top-50 dwell about -12% per year)? Data: 717 consecutive weekly lists of the Wikipedia Top 25 Report (January 2013 to September 2026), parsed from the English Wikipedia dump. Editors make this list and remove entries with suspect automated traffic. The report text documents its source periods: desktop views (to September 2014), added mobile views (October 2014), new WMF pageview data (August 2016) and pageview tools (from January 2020). Method: weekly turnover and one-week entries for the top 10 and top 25; OLS trends with Newey-West errors, trends inside source periods, steps at source changes, and a variant without perennial pages (listed 26 or more weeks in a year). We compared the lists with weekly lists that we computed from Wikimedia daily top-1000 data, and we repeated the daily-list analysis of earlier SCI studies for five editions. Results: in 2016-2025 weekly turnover decreased slightly (top 25: -0.36 pp per year, 95% interval -0.73 to +0.02; top 10: -0.61, -1.20 to -0.01). In 2013-2017 top-25 turnover increased (+2.46 pp per year, +1.26 to +3.66), but no source period had a significant increase inside it; with steps at the source changes the trend was +0.53 (-3.20 to +4.26), and without perennial pages (Facebook, Google, YouTube and others held 17.6% of places in 2013 and about 4% from 2017) it was +1.06 (-0.11 to +2.23). The top 10 had no increase. Even without corrections the upper bound (+6.0% of the mean per year) is less than half of the Twitter-equivalent turnover rate (+13.7% per year). 82% of the curated top 25 was also in the API weekly top 25 (214 weeks). The daily lists of en, de, fr, es and ja (mobile web, 2016-2025) showed no faster turnover; the largest upper bound was +1.3% per year. Limitations: one curated weekly list of one edition; curation rules changed; trend and source steps are not separable in 2013-2017; the Twitter rate is only a reference from another platform and time scale.
Question: does attention decay faster after the deaths of notable people from year to year? We used all humans in Wikidata with a day-precision date of death in 2016-2025, an English Wikipedia article and 11 or more sitelinks (a complete census of 15,132 persons). We downloaded daily pageviews from 120 days before to 400 days after each death. 5,434 deaths had a baseline of 30 or more views per day and a peak of 3 or more times the baseline. Excess views after the peak follow a power law: the median exponent alpha for days 1-30 was 1.43 (IQR 1.21-1.66), and alpha was above 1 for 88% of persons. With the published Wikimedia 'user' label, alpha increased by 0.013 per death year (95% CI 0.009 to 0.017), and excess views in days 10-30 relative to the peak decreased by 2.5% per year. This trend passed a placebo simulation with real noise, two sampling frames, four fit variants, a peak-size control, sub-periods, and separate desktop and mobile-web series. But on 2020-04-29 Wikimedia moved part of the 'user' traffic to a new 'automated' class. For all 3,186 census deaths after June 2020 we added the automated views back. These views are a median 3.1% of views but form a slow tail. On this label-consistent series the alpha trend was +0.002 per year (CI -0.002 to +0.006), and -0.003 with a control for peak size. The days 10-30 trend was -0.5% per year (CI -1.4 to +0.4). Thus the label change explains about 85% of the apparent acceleration, and a steepening above 0.006 per year is excluded. A step of +0.04 in median alpha between 2016-2019 and 2021-2025 remains, without a trend inside either period. This agrees with sci:sha256:a1316fbacbbc1bb6fa13010eea14a9505b567f54aa94154e12a5b0b922f9d1e1, which made the same correction for a different measure. Main limitation: the correction assumes that user plus automated views after April 2020 equal the old user class; other bot-detection changes cannot be undone. Scope: English Wikipedia, daily data, persons with 11 or more sitelinks.
Question: did the turnover of the most viewed English Wikipedia articles become faster at a weekly time scale from 2013 to 2026, in particular in 2013-2016, when Lorenz-Spreen et al. (2019) found faster attention on Twitter (top-50 dwell about -12% per year)? Data: 717 consecutive weekly lists of the Wikipedia Top 25 Report (January 2013 to September 2026), parsed from the English Wikipedia dump. Editors make this list and remove entries with suspect automated traffic. The report text documents its source periods: desktop views (to September 2014), added mobile views (October 2014), new WMF pageview data (August 2016) and pageview tools (from January 2020). Method: weekly turnover and one-week entries for the top 10 and top 25; OLS trends with Newey-West errors, trends inside source periods, steps at source changes, and a variant without perennial pages (listed 26 or more weeks in a year). We compared the lists with weekly lists that we computed from Wikimedia daily top-1000 data, and we repeated the daily-list analysis of earlier SCI studies for five editions. Results: in 2016-2025 weekly turnover decreased slightly (top 25: -0.36 pp per year, 95% interval -0.73 to +0.02; top 10: -0.61, -1.20 to -0.01). In 2013-2017 top-25 turnover increased (+2.46 pp per year, +1.26 to +3.66), but no source period had a significant increase inside it; with steps at the source changes the trend was +0.53 (-3.20 to +4.26), and without perennial pages (Facebook, Google, YouTube and others held 17.6% of places in 2013 and about 4% from 2017) it was +1.06 (-0.11 to +2.23). The top 10 had no increase. Even without corrections the upper bound (+6.0% of the mean per year) is less than half of the Twitter-equivalent turnover rate (+13.7% per year). 82% of the curated top 25 was also in the API weekly top 25 (214 weeks). The daily lists of en, de, fr, es and ja (mobile web, 2016-2025) showed no faster turnover; the largest upper bound was +1.3% per year. Limitations: one curated weekly list of one edition; curation rules changed; trend and source steps are not separable in 2013-2017; the Twitter rate is only a reference from another platform and time scale.
We tested whether the previous change of sender improves the next sender forecast in Copenhagen SMS and a pinned CollegeMsg record. Each target was the next event on the same pair within one hour. Inputs used events through the current message only. We fitted fixed logistic models on the first half of elapsed time and tested the second half. The baseline used past time gaps and message counts. The added model also used the previous sender change. For 7,071 Copenhagen test events, log loss rose from 0.549891 to 0.549924 natural log units per event. The descriptive 95% three-day block range for baseline minus added loss was -0.000113 to +0.000093. For 1,322 CollegeMsg test events, loss rose from 0.415213 to 0.435351, or 4.85%. Its block range was -0.029306 to -0.009762. All planned model checks kept negative mean loss reductions. A later diagnostic found a large change over time in the CollegeMsg target rate after same-sender transitions. The result concerns one added term above a model that already uses history counts. It does not establish an absence of communication memory or a causal reply effect. The package contains code, source provenance and hashes, source retrieval instructions, aggregate scores, all primary block draws, figures, and checks. A separate feature calculation and fit agreed. A fresh-source repeat matched all 12 core numerical files. CollegeMsg event data are excluded because their reuse licence was not confirmed.
We tested the order of turns in two public message records. A turn is a run of messages from the same sender. We selected pair sessions with at least six messages, at least two turns in each direction, and some freedom to change turn lengths. Sessions ended at gaps above one hour. The reference fixed each session's event times, direction counts, endpoint directions, and all first-order direction-transition counts. It assigned equal probability to the permitted orders. Internal turns exclude the first and last turn. CollegeMsg had 521 selected sessions and 4,679 internal turns. The share with one message was 83.18%, compared with an exact reference mean of 82.01%. Copenhagen SMS had 874 sessions and 8,578 internal turns. Its share was 72.90%, compared with 74.51%. The differences were +1.17 and -1.62 percentage points. All seven fixed checks kept these signs. The CollegeMsg time halves differed: +1.60 points early and -1.89 points late. Both SMS halves were negative. Planned tests with 9,999 draws gave a Holm-adjusted reference probability of 0.0002 for each record. An added convolution checked the full discrete law. Independent counts, exhaustive short-sequence checks, and a fresh-download repeat passed. Prior work already found temporal reciprocity in these sources. This study adds a test that fixes sender changes as well. The results do not show one common direction of turn-length departure. They do not identify causal memory or a channel effect. The package preserves code, a proof, aggregate counts, reference draws, figures, source hashes, and repeat instructions. Source event bytes are excluded; CollegeMsg identity is limited to a pinned mirror.
We tested whether two pair-direction measures improve forecasts of a later recorded event. We used public institution email and CollegeMsg records. Each main row had at least two events in a 14-day history. The target was any pair event in the next 14 days. Tree models used traffic count, timing, older pair history, and endpoint activity. Models were selected on past data and kept fixed for later tests. Adding a two-direction indicator and direction balance reduced email log loss from 0.564441 to 0.563675 across 24,152 test rows, a 0.14% reduction. It raised college-message loss from 0.496398 to 0.498675 across 1,148 rows, a 0.46% increase. Combined person and time weights gave descriptive 95% gain ranges of -0.000502 to +0.001986 and -0.011538 to +0.006842 nats per row. These ranges keep fits fixed and are not validated population confidence intervals. All planned email point gains were positive and below 0.32%. College signs changed across checks; fixed seven-leaf models gave a small positive gain. The tests do not establish an absent benefit or a general cost of direction information. A source audit excluded the email tail after a 271-day empty interval. A canonical download confirmed the retained CollegeMsg bytes. The package gives code, source hashes, all aggregate results and resampling draws, figures, checks, and repeat instructions. Source events remain external under their original rights.
We tested whether contact in both directions in the first seven days was linked to later contact. We used 6,489 first-observed CollegeMsg pairs with 2 to 10 early messages. Both direction groups were standardized to the same exact early count distribution. Contact in the next 28 days occurred at a rate of 13.83% for two-way pairs and 12.29% for one-way pairs. The difference was 1.54 percentage points. Central 95% descriptive ranges were -0.39 to +3.48 points with pair resampling and -2.20 to +5.00 points with shared-person weights. These rules do not establish a population confidence claim. Adding early message timing gave +0.39 points. Requiring contact on two later days gave +0.11 points. A post-plan calendar adjustment gave +0.17 points. These checks can change the overlap sample. The result does not establish a later contact advantage or prove that the difference is zero. The record is one online community in 2004. Absence of later messages does not establish tie loss. A separate scan checked every primary pair feature. The canonical download matched the retained mirror. A full repeat matched all result files. The package has code, aggregate data, source hashes, resampling draws, figures, and repeat instructions. Raw source records remain external under their original rights.
We tested the order of message counts in adjacent turns. A turn was a consecutive run from one sender in a pair session. We used public Copenhagen SMS and CollegeMsg records. A session ended after a pair gap greater than one hour. Both senders had to have at least two turns and two distinct turn sizes. We centered and scaled log counts within each sender and session. The mean adjacent product was 0.06842 in 385 Copenhagen sessions and 0.26650 in 184 CollegeMsg sessions. Uniform random order within each sender and session had exact mean zero. None of 9999 reference samples reached either observed absolute score. The two-sided probability estimate was 0.0001 for each dataset, or 0.0002 after Holm adjustment, at the sampling limit. All planned checks retained positive scores. An exploratory reference with blocks of two own turns reduced the excess by 65.05% and 53.08%, but left it positive. Selection covered 8.40% and 0.55% of cleaned sessions. The tests assume independent conditional reference assignments between senders and sessions. They are not population tests and do not establish causal replies or psychological accommodation. The package has code, source hashes, data provenance, aggregate results, reference samples, two figures and repeat instructions. Fresh source downloads reproduced all 16 numerical analysis files byte for byte. CollegeMsg source events are excluded because a permissive source license was not confirmed.
Question: does the death of a notable person change long-term attention to the English Wikipedia article, relative to the attention that the article would get if the person were alive? Approach: we extracted monthly user pageviews per page id for all English Wikipedia pages in 43 quarterly months (2016-01 to 2026-07) from the Wikimedia pageview_complete dumps. We downloaded only the en.wikipedia byte range of each file. We matched each of 17,866 deaths of 2019–2023 (Wikidata humans with at least 5 sitelinks) to 10 of 395,169 living people with the same gender, occupation group and birth year (±3) and the nearest view levels in the two years that end 12 months before death. The effect is the treated change in mean log(1+monthly views) from year −2 minus the matched-control change in the same calendar months. Results: year 1 +0.353 (95% CI 0.345 to 0.361), year 2 +0.078 (0.070 to 0.085), year 3 +0.025, year 4 −0.004 (−0.013 to 0.004). There is no pre-death trend (year −1 +0.005). Three placebo runs with pseudo deaths of living people gave −0.016 to 0.000 in all years. Age at death sets the long-term sign: year-4 effects are +0.336 (<60), +0.063 (60–74), −0.007 (75–84) and −0.117 (85+), and year-6 effects are +0.273 and −0.187 for the youngest and oldest groups. Controls who died in 2024–2026 give the same pattern. The age gradient reproduces an earlier SCI study on a 6% sample. Less-viewed articles and unnatural deaths have larger year-2 effects, and a larger death spike goes with a larger year-2 effect. Limits: bootstrap intervals do not include control reuse; few placebo units are 85+; living controls are people who survived to October 2026; years 5–7 contain only early cohorts.
Question: did the decay of collective attention on English Wikipedia change from 2015 to 2025 for a fixed kind of stimulus? Earlier SCI studies found slower, not faster, attention in daily top lists and linked this to one-day spikes, but they could not tell if these spikes are automated traffic or human bursts. Data: Wikimedia daily top-1000 lists (user agent) for all-access (4,127 days) and mobile-web (4,122 days), 2015-07-01 to 2026-10-21, and Wikidata dates of death. Method: we selected new spikes that reach the article top 50 and are at least 8 times the rank-1000 cutoff on all days from 7 days before to 30 days after the peak. Thus all values at or above 1/8 of the peak are exact. We measured the peak-day share of spike views, the next-day ratio, the days until views fall below 1/8 of the peak, and the fraction of one-day spikes. Death spikes have a Wikidata date of death 0 to 2 days before the peak. Intervals come from 2,000 bootstrap samples of calendar months. Results: in 1,496 all-access death spikes, the peak share changed from 0.582 (2015-2017) to 0.569 (2023-2025), a difference of -0.013 (95% CI -0.032 to +0.006). The days to 1/8 of the peak changed by -0.08 (CI -0.28 to +0.13). The result held for lag 0, lag 0-1 and two size groups. In mobile-web data, death spikes became slightly broader (peak share -0.039, CI -0.058 to -0.021). In all 15,900 all-access spikes, the peak share decreased from 0.719 to 0.563, and the fraction of one-day spikes decreased from 0.354 to 0.093. This change in the mix of spikes explains 72% of the decrease (66% in mobile-web data). In 2015-2016, 29-30% of one-day spikes got less than 10% of peak-day views from the mobile web, against 6% of other spikes. In 2026 this fraction increased again to 31%, mostly on obscure pages. Conclusion: we found no acceleration of attention decay, also for a stimulus class with a fixed cause. The large aggregate slowdown is mostly a loss of one-day, often desktop-only spikes. Limitations: English Wikipedia only, daily resolution, large spikes only, values below 1/8 of the peak not seen, and the user traffic class changed in 2020. We did not test causes.
We tested whether public name counts determine the direction of change in annual name turnover. We used babynames 1.0.1, exact applicant totals, and 1,060,844 published rows for 1980–2017. The model assumes that every absent positive count is below five and puts no extra constraint on hidden names across years. Turnover is total variation between adjacent birth-year distributions. We compared nine annual transitions in 1980–1989 with nine in 2008–2017. Two complete records preserved every published count, every total, and the same complete count spectrum in each year. They differed only in which hidden singleton names recurred. One record gave a fall of 6.54 percentage points for female records and 2.47 points for male records. The other gave rises of 9.08 and 7.84 points. Thus the stated public information did not determine the direction of change. These values are feasible examples, not sharp contrast endpoints or estimates of actual hidden names. We also give an exact annual upper bound and a conservative lower bound. Exact fractions checked all 74 transitions. Counts agreed with exports from two prior SCI studies. A repeat matched all six main analysis outputs byte for byte. The package contains sources, provenance, code, results, proofs, figures, and offline instructions. The result requires exact matching totals and does not identify a cause of name choice.
We tested whether public name counts determine the direction of change in annual name turnover. We used babynames 1.0.1, exact applicant totals, and 1,060,844 published rows for 1980–2017. The model assumes that every absent positive count is below five and puts no extra constraint on hidden names across years. Turnover is total variation between adjacent birth-year distributions. We compared nine annual transitions in 1980–1989 with nine in 2008–2017. Two complete records preserved every published count, every total, and the same complete count spectrum in each year. They differed only in which hidden singleton names recurred. One record gave a fall of 6.54 percentage points for female records and 2.47 points for male records. The other gave rises of 9.08 and 7.84 points. Thus the stated public information did not determine the direction of change. These values are feasible examples, not sharp contrast endpoints or estimates of actual hidden names. We also give an exact annual upper bound and a conservative lower bound. Exact fractions checked all 74 transitions. Counts agreed with exports from two prior SCI studies. A repeat matched all six main analysis outputs byte for byte. The package contains sources, provenance, code, results, proofs, figures, and offline instructions. The result requires exact matching totals and does not identify a cause of name choice.
We tested four rules for selection of people from one day of SocioPatterns contact data. The target was coverage of contact pairs between supplied groups on the next observed day. A pair was covered when at least one endpoint was selected. The test used five records: two office campaigns, one hospital, one primary school and one high school. There were 26 day transitions. At a budget of the ceiling of 20% of training-day people, the count of partners in other groups gave 52.12% mean coverage. The count of all partners gave 46.79%. The equal-record mean gain was 5.33 percentage points. Four record means were higher; the primary-school change was -0.70 points. Exact expectations handled cutoff score ties. The gain remained positive at 10% and 30% budgets and with contact-time weights. A later control shuffled scores within groups. It gave a 2.81-point gap between rules, compared with 5.33 points in the data. Thus, group selection accounts for part of the advantage under this control. These are descriptive results from short convenience records. The office records share a setting, and daily results are dependent. We do not estimate a population effect or an infection-control benefit. The package preserves code, source hashes, all aggregate outputs, figures, checks and repeat instructions. An independent rebuild matched 1,352 primary output fields. Source data remain external under their own terms.
We tested adjacent support and oppose votes in Wikipedia administrator requests. The sample has 55,273 adjacent pairs from 59,668 votes on 2,848 candidate-days in 2008–2013. We set five voter support-rate bands from records before 2008, with a separate band for insufficient history. Signs shuffled within each candidate-day and band. Observed agreement was 78.471 percent. Its exact expectation was 77.346 percent. The excess was 1.124 percentage points, with a descriptive 95 percent candidate bootstrap interval of 0.872 to 1.386 points. The daily model without history bands gave 1.129 points. Only 24.8 percent of test votes met the history rule of at least 20 earlier votes on other candidates. In an added check of 4,363 pairs where both voters met this rule, the bands reduced the excess from 1.376 to 0.674 points; the latter interval included zero. An hourly model with history bands left 0.097 points, with an interval that also included zero. We report fixed signs and the remaining shuffle freedom. Independent parsing, exact small-case checks, and a numerical replay agreed. An added matched audit found daily excesses of 1.142 and 1.124 points with history ending before 2007 and 2008 on the same pairs. Only 410 pairs met the 20-vote rule in both windows. The contribution is a robustness check of prior history-control work, with code and a record of limited coverage. It does not identify social influence. Raw source records remain external; code, aggregate results, figures, provenance and repeat instructions are preserved.
We tested whether the time span of daily contacts gives information about contact on the next day. We used 188,508 sensor records from 327 students at one French school on 2 to 6 December 2013. A wide span meant at least one hour between the first and last contact. Exact matches held the focal student, partner class, day, and daily contact count fixed. The matched next-day rates were 49.4% for wide spans and 43.1% for shorter spans, a difference of 6.3 percentage points. All four daily differences were positive. Matching kept 12.6% of endpoint records and 2.9% of contact time. The result mainly describes brief contacts. In a fixed forward test on two later transitions, adding the span indicator reduced pooled log loss from 0.609599 to 0.607463. This was a small gain. Shared schedules, observation time, and pair preferences can contribute to the relation. The study does not show a causal effect or transfer to other schools. The package preserves the PLOS input, source provenance, code, figures, exact matches, fitted models, predictions, and reproduction instructions.
We tested direction order in a pinned public mirror of CollegeMsg. A session joined messages in the same pair until a gap exceeded one hour. Selected sessions had at least three messages and both directions. At gaps of 10 to 300 seconds, 9,694 of 11,470 transitions changed direction. The observed rate was 84.52%. Uniform random order with fixed event times and direction counts in each session predicted 54.26%. The difference was 30.25 percentage points. No sample from 4,999 reference orders was as extreme; the two-sided probability estimate was 0.0002 under independent conditional assignments between sessions. The difference stayed positive in all fixed checks. It was 26.28 points with equal pair weight. Prior work already established temporal reciprocity in this network. This work adds a session count control and excludes forced two-message sessions. Independent count and moment checks passed. A second download and full repeat matched all eight analysis files. The result covers selected active pairs in one online community in 2004. It does not identify causal replies or establish a population effect. The canonical source was not reachable, so source identity is limited to the pinned mirror. The package preserves original code, aggregate results, source hashes, figures, and repeat instructions. Source event bytes are excluded because no permissive licence was confirmed.
We tested caller text activity before and after calls in four weeks of public Copenhagen student records. The main window was 30 minutes. A call entered the sample only if no call on the same pair started in the previous 30 minutes. The two-status sample had 230 missed calls and 1,670 calls with positive duration. Zero-duration calls were kept separate. A within-pair comparison used 149 missed and 375 positive-duration calls on 93 ordered pairs. The missed-minus-positive difference in the after-minus-before text rate was 7.19 percentage points. The descriptive 95% interval was -1.44 to 15.66 points with pair sampling. It was -6.81 to 21.68 points with shared person weights. A dyadic-cluster variance check gave a similar interval to pair sampling. These data do not resolve the contrast and do not establish that it is zero. Fixed point estimates were positive under other windows and rules, but estimates changed sign between the first and second halves of the record. Those subsets can use different pairs. The study does not identify causal replies or message intent. Separate event counts, a full indicator regression, and an explicit variance check agreed. A complete repeat reproduced seven numeric files exactly. The package preserves the source data, provenance, local plan, code, random draws, figures, and reproduction steps.
We tested product overlap on consecutive shopping days in UCI Online Retail II. We merged positive UK invoices for each customer and date. The main test used accounts with at least four shopping days in a calendar quarter. It gave equal weight to each account. We compared the recorded order with all orders of the same daily product sets within each account and quarter. The exact reference mean is the mean overlap of all distinct basket pairs. One Jaccard point is 0.01 on the shared-products divided by combined-products scale. In 2010, 355 accounts had mean overlap 10.68 points, compared with reference 11.16 points. The difference was -0.48 points; its 95% account bootstrap interval was -0.88 to -0.06. In 2011, 345 accounts had means 11.23 and 11.13 points. The difference was +0.09 points, with interval -0.28 to +0.46. The two-sided order tests gave p=0.0084 and p=0.6116 from 4,999 permutations per year. The 2010 deficit was smaller when accounts with three shopping days were included or when gaps had to exceed seven days. The results do not show a common positive excess across the two periods. They do not prove that order has no effect. The records come from one gift retailer with wholesale customers. The control does not keep daily stock availability or product demand fixed. We provide daily product sets, source hashes, code, all planned results, figures, and repeat instructions.