Even if someone meticulously documents their process, it could still take months to replicate the results.
I'm familiar with lithography/nanofabrication and I know that it is typically the case that a process developed in one clean-room can not be directly applied to a different clean room and instead one has to develop a new process based on what the other results.
Even in the same lab it can often happen that if you come back to a process after a longer time, that things don't work out anymore and quite a bit of troubleshooting ensues (maybe a supplier for some chemical changed and even though it should be the same formula it behaves slightly different).
I previously worked in agricultural research (in the private sector), and we spent YEARS trying to replicate some published research from overseas. And that was research that had previously been successfully replicated, and we even flew in the original scientists and borrowed a number of their PhD students for several months, year after year, to help us try to make it work.
We never did get it to fully replicate in our country. We ended up having to make some pretty extreme changes to the research to get similar (albeit less reliable) results here.
We never did figure out why it worked in one part of the world but not another, since we controlled for every other factor we could think of (including literally importing the original team's lab supplies at great expense, just in case there was some trace contaminant on locally sourced materials).
You are almost stressing all the ways we are producing garbage rendered non-reproducible with deficient documentation of processes, changes in supply, and changes in the environment. All three can be minimized through peer replication.
Implementing the code for the simulation and analysis of the data? four months, at most. Running the simulation? almost three years until I had data with good enough resolution for publishing.
For a reductive example, the idea to solve P vs NP is a great one, but I’m not going to do that any time soon!
Peer replication is completely unfeasible in experimental fields of science. The current process of peer review is alright, people just need to learn that single papers standing by themselves don't mean too much. The "peer replication" happens over time anyway when others use the same tools, samples, techniques on related problems and find results in agreement with earlier papers.
