All a bit worrying tho - one major research group linked to NASA and SPAWAR churning out multiple publications where everything works just dandy in LENR-world, then you have others like Coolescence where nothing works and everything LENR can be accounted for as either artifacts or calibration errors.
NASA and SPAWAR are not "churning out" multiple publications about anything. They have only published a few papers. They have never claimed that any of their devices works, dandy or otherwise. Only that some results are promising. I have been in close contact with them, and I think I have carefully read everything they published. Your characterization of their claims makes me wonder if you have read them.
I do not know if anyone has replicated the SPAWAR claims. I don't recall any solid replications, but the cold fusion literature is large and I may have forgotten them. There were many efforts to replicate it.
I do not think Coolescence concluded that the SPAWAR claims and the other claims they investigated could be accounted for as either artifacts or calibration errors. I read their papers carefully too. They were not able to replicate any effect, even as an artifact. To conclude that an effect is an artifact or calibration error, you have to get the same results, and the same numbers, and then show they are instrument errors. Coolescence did not do this. McKubre did in a few cases. The people at IH did this when they demonstrated apparent (but not real) excess heat coming from an empty reactor when they used Rossi's methods.