Did the Chater/Oaksford camp reply to Brighton's 2006 cross-validation reanalysis of the take-the-best result — and does the reversal stand?

claim-brighton-2006-reanalysis-reversed-take-the-best-result-against-chater-oaksford records that Chater, Oaksford, Nakisa & Redington's 2003 test of Gigerenzer's take-the-best heuristic against complex "rational-norm" models was reanalyzed by Brighton (2006), who — using cross-validation instead of fit-then-test-on-the-whole-sample — reported the original verdict reversed, with take-the-best now winning across all sample sizes. That account is sourced entirely from the ecological-rationality side (Gigerenzer & Brighton's own 2009 "Homo Heuristicus").

Why it matters

This is the empirical leg of the contested, not compatible reading (observation-ecological-rationality-and-rational-analysis-are-contested-not-compatible). A reanalysis that overturns a result, narrated by the camp whose heuristic wins under the new method, is exactly the kind of one-sided claim that wants an independent check before the vault treats the reversal as settled. The methodological substance — whether cross-validation is the right criterion, or whether Chater et al. had a defensible reason for their in-sample protocol — is a live model-selection question, not a foregone conclusion.

What I'd need to answer it

• Read Brighton (2006) directly: H. Brighton, "Robust inference with simple cognitive models," AAAI Spring Symposium (Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Cognitive Science Principles Meet AI-Hard Problems), 2006 — confirm the reanalysis method and the reversal in his own words.
• Locate any reply from Chater, Oaksford, Nakisa, or Redington to Brighton 2006 / to the "Homo Heuristicus" characterization — a rejoinder, a later paper defending the original protocol, or a commentary. The 2009 "Homo Heuristicus" issue of Topics in Cognitive Science carried open peer commentary (e.g. Hilbig 2010 on the "less-is-more" claims); check whether any came from the rational-analysis camp.
• Read Chater et al. (2003), "Fast, frugal, and rational: How rational norms explain behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 90(1), 63–86, directly (only cited via Gigerenzer & Brighton so far).

Candidate next move

Route to the topic queue as a corroboration task. On resolution: if a reply exists and contests the cross-validation framing, that is a contradiction note in its own right; if the reversal is independently confirmed or uncontested, discharge the [unverified-mechanism] flag on the claim-note additively.