My understanding is that there is disagreement between Kasy and the CS authors.What is the disagreement?
That "correction" looks like a literature review.
There are mistakes in Kasy's paper. So what the CS authors point out is important. Kasy does not want to admit that and try to diminish the value of the note of the CS authors.
It seems to me that he is doing this by downplaying the theoretical positioning of the paper, by arguing that the corrected statement in the comment directly follows from the literature so that critics from CS and econometric theory crowd become irrelevant. Quite hypocritical in view of the version which was submitted and accepted by econometrica, but, from an egoistic personal point of view, a much better strategy than for the JMP where he was obliged to acknowledge mistakes.
There is some learnings here, but success will depend on how accepted this behaviour is. It is possible that he will get some support by playing applied against theory, especially in a UK environment.
My understanding is that there is disagreement between Kasy and the CS authors.What is the disagreement?
That "correction" looks like a literature review.There are mistakes in Kasy's paper. So what the CS authors point out is important. Kasy does not want to admit that and try to diminish the value of the note of the CS authors.
Feddersen and Pesendorfer gave an incorrect proof in their Swing Voter's Curse paper (easily noticeable if you read it). Their error made the proof much simpler than it actually should be. Luckily, it's fixed by Fey and Kim (AER 2002)
"Family Ruptures" https://www.econjobrumors.com/topic/new-family-ruptures-aer-nber-is-rip-off-of-obscure-paper
Young's 2019 QJE "Channeling fisher: Randomization tests and the statistical insignificance of seemingly significant experimental results" relied on inadequate STATA default reg x y, robust
http://datacolada.org/99
a summary...what's wrong