Why it is a question
THEORY-918 holds that across 642 tests to September 2019 the pooled d = .36 falls to a model-averaged d = .15 under robust Bayesian meta-analysis, which still found extreme evidence of an effect. The search was not updated, only the overall estimate was corrected, and effects were smaller in the field and online than in the lab and in person.
What would answer it
A meta-analysis that adds the tests published since September 2019, or a set of preregistered multi-site replications, estimating the effect with correction for publication bias and finding it reliably above zero and of the same small order. The effect is refuted if bias-corrected estimates in an updated or registered set fall to zero, and narrowed if it holds only in the lab and for in-person delivery. A larger uncorrected pooled d cannot answer it.