This is a part of a Wikipedia article about Julia Shaw, a criminal psychologist who specializes in the topic of false memories and their implications on the criminal justice system. First, I thought that the word "recode" was a typo of "record" but it appears more than once in the text.
Shaw specialises in false memories and how law enforcement can use "tactics [that] may lead people to recall crimes that never occurred".[4] In one of her studies, she stated that in a controlled setting she was able to construct false memories of childhood events in 70% of participants using suggestive memory-retrieval techniques.[2][10][11] The validity of this 70% finding has, however, been criticised by colleagues who recoded the data to conclude 26–30% of participants had false memories (with those with false beliefs without memory details not being counted as false memories in this recoding).[12] Shaw addressed the criticism in a 2018 article in Psychological Science, where she explained that the original coding categorized false beliefs as false memories, in keeping with past research that argued memory and belief are difficult to truly distinguish.[13**
The only definition I found that could fit into this context is...
Psychology., to mentally process (information) again in a different way. (dictionary.com)
...although this kind of wording would signify a very haphazard and unscientific way of arriving at a result of an experiment. People simply "reconsidered"? The scientific method should provide them with tools that pervent them from making arbitrary decisions IMO.
P.S. Also the usage of the word 'conclude' in this way is sort of alien to me. This means simply that 'the study concluded' (the result of the study was thus) right?
