The first calls out the selection process and indicates that they are not randomly selected or representative of the literature. This is correct. We committed to replicating findings that were not yet discovered. There is no way to define a population and randomly sample from undiscovered things.

One could argue that the prospective approach is dumb, but for us this was important -- we wanted to know from the outset of the discovery process that replications would occur. This could lead to the findings being unusual in other ways...

I'm not concerned if the high replication rate is partly due to researchers selecting particularly robust effects to put forward. Being more cautious in our claims should be part of the methods reform process. We should all think 2x before putting forward "findings" we have low confidence in.