I agree that the inept way the data was fabricated doesn’t point in one direction or the other. But as to the willingness to release the underlying XLS file, it

I agree that the inept way the data was fabricated doesn’t point in one direction or the other. But as to the willingness to release the underlying XLS file, it’s also consistent with the other coauthors looking to distance themselves from their cheating partner. If “the fourth author” sincerely believed in the effect of top-first pledges, he’d assume a replication attempt would make legitimate the “shortcut” his younger self took. When the original results failed to replicate, and the world started looking for the original data, being the only member of the original team to object to releasing it would make things even worse when the fraud eventually was uncovered. Easier to roll with it and work on discrediting the source instead. Okay, so that last paragraph is pure speculation. But people—even smart people!—do nonsensical things all the time. “If he was guilty, why would he do X?” is rarely a good defense. All that being said, I’m still more likely to believe the fabrication was done by someone at the insurance company. But it would be better if we got more detail on who Dan was working with. Or the exact method of data delivery. (The file in question shows Dan as the original creator in metadata, and has the Cambria/Calibri issue. How exactly did that happen?) Not holding my breath on that, though.