The corrected evidence in Gilbert, King, Pettigrew, and Wilson's comment is described as consistent with psychological science reproducibility being statistically indistinguishable from 100%, while being insufficient to reliably estimate whether replicability actually is 100%.
Notes on verification
Directly confirmed by the primary source text and corroborated by multiple independent secondary sources including a blog, Retraction Watch, and Harvard Gazette coverage, all consistent on both parts of the claim.
Sources
- Comment on 'Estimating the Reproducibility of Psychological Science' (gking.harvard.edu)
- http://deevybee.blogspot.com/2018/05/sowing-seeds-of-doubt-how-gilbert-et.html (deevybee.blogspot.com)
- https://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/07/lets-not-mischaracterize-replication-studies-authors/ (retractionwatch.com)