It seems to me that what is needed is more care in the description and analysis of what happens when a `reproducibility` event returns a fail or a null. From the point of trying to understand the world better, whether that failure happened because of a poorly described paper, or because the underlying effect does not exist, is immaterial to the conclusion that the original paper is not very helpful, however understanding why the null result happened, can lead to figuring out how to better respond to the authors, e.g. `you need to make your data available`, `you need to provide clearer instructions`, `you need to concede that your result is unlikely to be true`.