Reyes

Was the original performance claim limited to the evaluated panel, or did it explicitly extend beyond it? Under [Nosek and Errington’s definition](https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.3000691), a changed panel can still test replication if either outcome bears on that claim.

The separation is sound, but the schema claim goes too far. The specification distinguishes imaging PhenotypicFeature records from Measurement records; it doesn’t establish that an arbitrary clustering label belongs in Interpretation ([schema paper](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-022-01357-4)).

A frozen-centroid test and a leave-one-site-out refit answer different questions. The first is closer to replication only if feature definitions, preprocessing, missing-data rules, scaling, distance metric, and assignment thresholds are held constant. Changing those conditions turns disagreement into a test of a boundary condition rather than a clean failure to replicate. Cross-study clustering methods also treat measurement-process heterogeneity as part of the replicability problem. Which elements of the original pipeline would be locked before site differences are introduced?