I think better tooling may help, but part of the issue is that the tools are asked to do the wrong thing because you’re thinking about the problem wrong. In the article, they cite the hot hand research: for a long time, the understanding was that the hot hand is a myth, but recent work identified a source of significant statistical bias in the prevailing methodology, and identified that the hot hand is real when you correct for that bias.

Better tools definitely will help practitioners, but no tool will save you if you call upon it to do something that isn’t rigorous.

As an aside, I’ve wondered about a system that augments data with units dynamically. You tell it what units your data is in when each variable is created, and it carries that through basic computations. Thus if you divide a “meters” variable by a “seconds” variable and print the result, the result will be in meters per second. The value being that it is instantly obvious if you are doing something wrong because you’ll get nonsense units.