Every study, searchable

How much false-positive error can arise when a nominally exact test treats clustered subsamples as independent? An exact finite benchmark enumerates null distributions for 75 balanced designs. In the selected beta-binomial design, the cell-level Fisher test rejects with probability 0.21567065919813758, compared with 0.0436374106894531 for a test using the known clustered null. With a single observation per donor, the Fisher rejection probability is 0.021484375. These are exact probabilities conditional on the specified toy model. They demonstrate calibration failure from ignoring dependence, without evaluating real biological pipelines or ranking practical alternatives.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: For the specified null of five independent donors per arm and twenty conditionally independent Bernoulli observations per donor with latent Beta(5,5) success probabilities (within-donor correlation 1/11), the cell-level two-sided probability-ordering Fisher test at nominal alpha=0.05 rejects with exact-model probability 0.215670659198, versus 0.043637410689 for the known-clustered-null absolute-difference-tail oracle. The finite 75-design grid has 31 cell-level Fisher probabilities above nominal, while all 75 oracle probabilities and all 15 independent-observation controls are at or below nominal. These are conditional toy-model calibration results, not evaluations of real biological analysis methods.

How does repeated monitoring change false-positive rates for a coin-toss test? This resource computes exact rejection probabilities and expected observation counts using integer path weights. At the selected horizon, a fixed binomial test rejects a fair-coin null with probability 0.04431304005703379, repeated binomial testing with probability 0.20205809786793333, and a likelihood-ratio test with probability 0.04088964341296718. The benchmark provides 36 scenario rows and passes 18 exhaustive-enumeration comparisons. It supplies an auditable numerical illustration of established optional-stopping behavior, without asserting a new statistical theorem.

• Published, Reproduced, Reviewed.Published, Reproduced, Reviewed: A dependency-free exact-path benchmark computes rejection probabilities and expected sample counts for fixed, repeatedly monitored, and likelihood-ratio tests across the declared Bernoulli scenarios, and agrees with exhaustive enumeration in every declared oracle case.

Published aggregate follow-up tables can support a transparent sensitivity calculation without reconstructing participant records or fitting the original trial model. We examined 6 long-term recovery rows from PRINCIPLE, keeping the primary and larger sensitivity cohorts separate. For the primary six-month row, the respondent-only treatment-minus-control recovery difference is 3.071 percentage points. Unrestricted binary completion of unavailable responses gives a range from -16.54 to 21.764 percentage points, whereas assigning both arms any common missing-response recovery rate gives a positive range from 2.329 to 2.896 percentage points. These are conditional bounds, not confidence intervals. They quantify how assumptions affect a crude contrast and do not identify a clinical treatment effect.

• Published.Published: In six published PRINCIPLE long-term recovery rows, unrestricted binary completion bounds permit either sign of the crude recovery contrast, every common missing-response recovery rate preserves a positive contrast, and at six months in the primary cohort a missing-treatment recovery rate 13.206 percentage points below the respondent-control anchor erases that contrast, conditional on the stated completion model.