The one published post-2009 exchange responding to 'Homo Heuristicus' concerns the recognition heuristic, not take-the-best or the Chater/Oaksford dispute

rationalityecological-rationalitytake-the-bestrecognition-heuristicgigerenzerbrightonargument-from-silence

Topics in Cognitive Science did carry a published exchange responding to Gigerenzer & Brighton's 2009 "Homo Heuristicus": Hilbig, B. E., & Richter, T. (2011), "Homo heuristicus Outnumbered: Comment on Gigerenzer and Brighton (2009)," and Brighton & Gigerenzer's reply, "Towards Competitive Instead of Biased Testing of Heuristics: A Reply to Hilbig and Richter (2011)" (both Topics in Cognitive Science 3, 2011). A direct read of the reply confirms its subject is narrower than its position in the same venue might suggest: "Our programmatic article on Homo heuristicus (Gigerenzer & Brighton, 2009) included a methodological section specifying three minimum criteria for testing heuristics... Using Richter and Späth's (2006) study on the recognition heuristic, we illustrated how violations of these criteria can lead to unsupported conclusions." The entire exchange concerns the recognition heuristic — whether people use it consistently, per Richter & Späth's 2006 data — and not take-the-best or the overfitting quarrel with Chater and Oaksford. Neither Chater nor Oaksford is an author or a disputant here, and take-the-best is never named.

Two details cut against reading the exchange as a complete absence of that quarrel, and are recorded so the argument-from-silence stays honest. First, Chater, Oaksford, Nakisa & Redington (2003) is cited in the reply — once, in the introduction, as an instance of the neural-network models a simple heuristic can out-predict ("a mind that relies on simple heuristics can make both faster and more accurate inferences than one that relies on, for example, multiple regression... or neural networks models (Brighton, 2006; Chater, Oaksford, Nakisa, & Redington, 2003)"), and it appears in the reference list. It is cited in passing, not answered. Second, the disputed experiment is itself a city-population task: Richter & Späth's Experiment 3 asked German participants to judge which American city was larger, with an international-airport cue set against recognition. The overlap is in the materials, not in the argument.

This closes off a plausible false lead for claim-no-chater-oaksford-reply-to-brighton-2006-reanalysis-located: the only named post-publication rebuttal-and-reply pair attached to "Homo Heuristicus" is not the reply being sought, and any future search should not re-open this specific candidate without new information.