Exactly. Most 'good science' start with premises A, B, and C from their respective papers, and go on to show that X is likely true because of this new data. I

Exactly. Most 'good science' start with premises A, B, and C from their respective papers, and go on to show that X is likely true because of this new data. In general, it would be impossible to propose X if A, B, and C were not themselves true - they were the foundations of this new research. In that way, even though the publication of X may not have directly (though often precisely directly) repeat the experiments of A, B, and C, they still have replicated the core concepts. As noted, this does not get rid of the confounding negative effects, where paper D was also used as a (in retrospect, faulty) premise as well. Though no one ever actually comes out and says 'D' is bad. Over time, A, B, and C theories accrue significant weight while D falls off. It's not as explicit as some may like, but in the end the spirit of replication is well and alive.