Yes totally! The primary solution we suggest is for authors to fill out the standardized prereg deviations table (to be published along with article), and then AEs/reviewers can evaluate table during the review process to determine risk of bias. (And then future readers would have access to info to

evaluate.) Of course, prereg itself is a skill to be honed (and research doesn’t always go according to plan), so deviations are expected. But, transparency is key. At the same time, all of that does not correct the past lit and like you mentioned, to fully evaluate adherence to prereg plans