Have independent labs or third parties replicated the blind test results for Gravite?

1. What the sources actually cover — and what they do not

The indexed items include a product update for a testing tool called Gravity (a software product) describing feature changes in January 2025 ^[1], a conference program about "Testing Gravity 2025" (a physics meeting) that lists topics and logistics ^[2], and multiple unrelated blind-test projects or contests in remote sensing, drug-discovery and other fields ^{[3] [4]}. None of these documents mention a product or study named "Gravite" or report independent/third‑party replication of its blind-test results; available sources do not mention independent replications of Gravite blind tests ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

2. Closest matches in the record — why they aren’t confirmations

The strongest match is a Gravity product update from Smartesting describing improvements to a tool named Gravity, which is about test coverage and software features — not a scientific blind validation of a device called Gravite ^[1]. Other entries are blind prediction contests and blind tests in fields like hyperspectral target detection and AI drug discovery, which demonstrate that blind challenges are used widely as verification methods, but they are not about Gravite and do not describe independent replication of its results ^{[3] [4]}.

3. How independent replication normally appears in reporting

When independent labs replicate a high‑profile blind test, reporting typically cites published replication studies, preprints, or press releases from multiple institutions and includes methodological details, sample sizes and comparison statistics. The provided material includes examples of rigorous blind competitions and replication-style efforts (e.g., blind prediction contests and community challenges) but none that tie to Gravite specifically ^{[4] [3]}.

4. Two possible explanations for the gap

Either (a) Gravite’s blind-test results have not been independently replicated — in which case we would expect later papers or contest results to record attempts — or (b) replication work exists but is outside the set of sources you provided. The sources at hand simply do not mention Gravite replications, so no definitive statement can be made beyond "not found in current reporting" ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Where to look next and what to demand from replication reports

Seek peer‑reviewed journals, preprint servers (arXiv, ChemRxiv), institutional press releases, or community blind‑challenge repositories that publish held‑out test sets and independent entries; the Open Molecular Software Foundation challenge example shows how blind challenges publish their methodology and held‑out test sets to enable independent verification ^[4]. For any claimed replication, require: clear blind protocol, raw or anonymized data, independent lab affiliations, and statistical comparison to original results — elements visible in the blind‑challenge reporting in the sources ^{[4] [3]}.

6. Caveats, limitations and potential agendas in the sources

The indexed items are fragmented and cover many meanings of "gravity"/"blind test" across software, academic conferences and competitions; that ambiguity can mask targeted reporting about specific products like Gravite. Conference pages and product update posts ^{[2] [1]} aim to promote events or releases and will not substitute for independent peer‑reviewed replication. Blind‑challenge press coverage ^[4] tends to highlight community successes and may underreport failed replications — examine primary datasets and methods.

7. Bottom line for your question

Based on the provided sources, there is no documented evidence that independent labs or third parties have replicated blind-test results for a product or study named Gravite; available sources do not mention such replications ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. If you want confirmation, request or search for peer‑reviewed replication papers, preprints mentioning "Gravite", or public blind‑challenge datasets tied to that name.