Yeah let's be done with that weird framing that does not hold water no matter how you read our critique and the retraction notice. This isn't a win for reform. The issues do not (I emphasize: not at all) reduce down to our ability to read a prereg. Trying to make it so comes across as desperate.

Also for whomever needs to hear this: Neither Joe nor I were authors on the "Preregistration is redundant at best" paper nor have I used such a language elsewhere (I believe that also holds for Joe). It is weird to be repeatedly attacked for reasons that have nothing to do with us.