Outcome Choice and Conditional Trait Expression: Research Materials and Reproducibility Package

This repository contains the research materials and computational reproducibility package accompanying Outcome Choice and Conditional Trait Expression: Epistemic Commitment and Interpersonal Advantage Across Social Roles. The article develops an integrative theoretical framework distinguishing four scored outcome classes—Evaluation, Selection, Commitment, and Production—from the conditions under which epistemic rigidity and interpersonal antagonism are expressed. It combines published conditional comparisons, a source-level evidence audit, and analytical constructions to specify which comparisons can support functional claims about trait expression. The focal evidence inventory comprises 50 reports represented by 258 historical extraction records. Source re-extraction adds 146 source entries and identifies 95 compatible direct Pearson associations, including 60 newly recovered associations. The archive preserves distinctions among reports, studies, cohorts, analytic subsets, statistical estimands, and dependent observations. The 95 associations constitute a descriptive evidence inventory, not a pooled meta-analysis. A separately documented targeted-search audit accounts for 64 retained records: 62 primary-text appraisals and two reports not retrieved. Original machine-pass decisions and all 19 categorical disagreements remain available alongside subsequent source-specific dispositions. Machine agreement is reported as consistency rather than independent human validation. The targeted audit and the broader search-identification accounting do not constitute a completed systematic review. Contents • Source-linked extraction records and evidence ledgers.• Report, study, cohort, and analytic-unit crosswalks.• Eligibility decisions, reporting limitations, and source locators.• Native conditional comparisons retained in their reported units.• The 64-record targeted-source audit and its validation checks.• Search strategies, acquisition counts, identity reconciliation, and search-flow accounting.• Code reproducing the descriptive summaries and analytical constructions.• Exports and validation bindings for the article’s 14 main and supplementary tables.• Figure-generation code and reference outputs.• Final reference documents used to check agreement between the manuscript and reproducible outputs.• Environment specifications, offline dependency materials, file inventories, and integrity manifests.• Automated tests that detect altered source values, inconsistent accounting, missing embedded figures, and other reproduction failures. Reproduction Extract the archive to a dedicated directory and follow README.md and REPRODUCIBILITY.md. The principal reproduction command is: python reproduce_all.py --output ../pspr-results The output directory must be new and outside the extracted archive. The documentation provides offline environment setup instructions and the additional command options required for figure generation. Validation The final reviewer archive passed complete reproduction runs on Windows and Linux. The author provenance archive also passed a complete Windows run. Validation included 25 automated tests, 386 table checks, 243 numerical bindings, and 439 retained-source audit checks. Each complete run passed 42 table-output comparisons and nine artifact comparisons. Five distinct generated vector PDFs were byte-identical across the tested Windows and Linux environments. These checks establish computational reproduction of the archived calculations and outputs. They do not reproduce the original studies from participant-level data or establish independent human adjudication of the scientific evidence. Interpretive Scope Source-native coefficients retain their original estimands and units. Adjusted regressions, interactions, treatment contrasts, and coefficients with unresolved reporting limitations are not silently converted into Pearson associations. Shared cohorts and dependent outcomes remain linked. The archive does not estimate a unique total participant count or pool the 95 descriptive associations. The two unretrieved reports remain explicit access dispositions, without substantive eligibility judgments. The evidence does not establish the absence of relevant studies from the wider literature. Complete tests of Propositions 3 and 4 remain unresolved. Data and Access The materials concern published research and aggregate extraction records. No new participant-level data were collected for this article. Copyrighted full-text articles and licensed database abstracts are not included for redistribution. Bibliographic identifiers, source locators, and provenance records support lawful consultation of the original sources.