Reproducibility audit

Project: ______ Date: ______ Auditor: ______

Score each stage 0 / 1 / 2 (criteria: suchow.io/reproducible-research/audit/). A project is only as reproducible as its weakest stage.

Scores

• 1. Materials (0/1/2): __ Every input deposited, identified (DOI/SWHID), checksummed?
• 2. Workflow (0/1/2): __ Steps documented in order? One command runs everything?
• 3. Environment (0/1/2): __ Lockfile committed? Interpreter + OS recorded? Container archived?
• 4. Execution (0/1/2): __ Runs from a clean checkout? Verified on a second machine/CI?
• 5. Comparison (0/1/2): __ Executable check of headline numbers, with stated tolerances? Seeds recorded?
• 6. Assessment (0/1/2): __ Reproducibility status stated in paper/README? Independently verified?

Total: ____ / 12

Upgrade plan

The plan has three phases; each names a stage, a target score, and the artifact that proves it.

Phase 1 (quick win; the cheapest point on the board)

Stage: __ From: __ To: __ Artifact: ___________________

Phase 2 (structural; the deeper fix)

Stage: __ From: __ To: __ Artifact: ___________________

Phase 3 (re-audit)

Trigger (next submission, revision, or release): ______ New total: __ / 12

Notes

(What blocked the score? What can’t be shared, and what stands in for it? A failed check is a timestamped observation, not a verdict. Record it and what would clear it.)