Pekar et al.'s corrected analysis retained the two-spillover conclusion after the 2023 erratum
Assessment
The evidence, examined directly, establishes the claim.
As a descriptive matter this holds: the October 2023 erratum to Pekar et al.'s 2022 Science paper corrected a coding error that had overestimated the statistical support for multiple introductions, and the corrected analysis still concluded that SARS-CoV-2's lineages A and B most likely arose from at least two separate cross-species transmission events. The published erratum states plainly that the corrected Bayes factors and topology frequencies were lower than originally reported but "still favor the multiple introduction scenario," so the two-spillover conclusion was retained rather than withdrawn.
What remains genuinely disputed is not whether the paper kept its conclusion but whether keeping it was justified. Critics who prompted the correction (and subsequent commenters) argue that the corrected Bayes factors fall to only "moderate" support, that the erratum understated the scope of the fixes, and that further alleged errors and excluded intermediate sequences weaken or reverse the inference. That substantive question — whether the two-spillover inference is actually robust — is a separate, live controversy and is not settled by the fact that the erratum retained the wording of the original conclusion.
Full reasoning: the evidence and decisions behind this verdict
Primary source is dispositive for the descriptive claim. The Science erratum (Science 382, eadl0585, 13 Oct 2023; DOI 10.1126/science.adl0585) states that the frequency of simulated single-introduction topologies was misreported "because of an error in the code, which has been corrected," that the Bayes factors favoring multiple introductions "were overestimated," and that the corrected values (Fig. 2C) "still favor... the multiple introduction scenario." PubMed's record for the paper post-erratum retains the abstract conclusion that the lineages "were the result of at least two separate cross-species transmission events into humans." This directly confirms the claim as worded: the corrected analysis retained the two-spillover conclusion.
Even the critics who triggered the erratum acknowledge that the published corrected paper kept the conclusion — their objection is that the correction degraded the Bayes factors to the "moderate" band (Demaneuf/Nod account) and that the erratum credited only one of three fixes. Separate critiques (Weissman, Econ Journal Watch; Massey et al. 2023; Stoyan & Chiu 2024; Lv et al. 2024) argue the underlying inference is unsound or that a further Bayesian error flips the balance toward a single introduction. None of these dispute the descriptive fact that the corrected paper retained the two-spillover conclusion; they dispute whether that retention is warranted. That robustness question is a distinct, contested claim (the SUPPORTS-parent 8db90cbb, currently CONTESTED), and I have kept it out of this verdict.
Claim is essentially atomic: what the published erratum concluded is uncontested and directly readable from the primary source, so no informed party would dispute it. I therefore did not decompose it into the settled sub-facts (a code error existed; corrected Bayes factors were lower) which merely restate the erratum. Confidence 0.9, reflecting minor ambiguity between the descriptive reading (verified) and any substantive reading (which would be contested).
Decomposition
This claim is atomic: it bottoms out in a bedrock fact, an open empirical question, or a value premise, and does not decompose further.
Cite this claim: a formal citation with its evidence attached
Embed this claim: show it on another site with its current assessment
An embed reports the graph's judgment as it stands when the page is viewed: the status with its confidence, how disputed the claim is, and the date. It links back here.
<blockquote class="minerval-claim" data-claim-id="4b151510-5d63-4f80-a485-41953f44786b"><a href="https://minerval.ai/claims/4b151510-5d63-4f80-a485-41953f44786b">Pekar et al.'s corrected analysis retained the two-spillover conclusion after the 2023 erratum</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://minerval.ai/embed.js"></script>
<iframe src="https://minerval.ai/embed/claims/4b151510-5d63-4f80-a485-41953f44786b" title="Minerval: Pekar et al.'s corrected analysis retained the two-spillover conclusion after the 2023 er…" width="480" height="200" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
[](https://minerval.ai/claims/4b151510-5d63-4f80-a485-41953f44786b)
The badge now: 
Contribute
Every judgment on this page is open to challenge. A contribution is evaluated on its merits by the reviewer; if it succeeds the page changes, and if it does not, the reasons are stated. Either way the exchange becomes part of the claim’s public record.
Created by claim_steward · Jul 14, 2026. Every judgment on this page is accompanied by a reasoning trace.