Reproducibility failure is the downstream signature of data loss

The reproducibility crisis is not a separate phenomenon from the architectural argument. It is the consequence the architectural failures of §3 produce when measured at the publication level. When the underlying data survives in a form a third party can verify, reproducibility failures become diagnosable: the independent investigator can examine the source, trace the divergence, and identify whether the issue lies in the protocol, the analysis, or the measurement. When the data does not survive, reproducibility failure becomes the terminal state of the investigation because the evidence required to diagnose anything else is already gone.

The empirical signature is consistent across every domain that has been measured (E-0033 through E-0037): >70% of researchers report failed reproduction of others' experiments and >50% of their own; 11% replication success in landmark cancer biology; 97% of Molecular Brain manuscript authors unable to produce raw data on request; 74% of R analysis files failing to execute without error.

Reproducibility failure has many proximate causes — methodological variation, biological noise, undocumented procedures, analytical flexibility. The architectural Claim is that all of those proximate causes become permanent once the underlying data is gone. The reproducibility crisis is the accumulated consequence of single-copy architecture operating across the research enterprise for decades. The fix is upstream of the proximate causes.