Do you mean generalizability? 

Morrison (2009) advocates that qualitative methods may be more ‘ideal’ than quantitative methods (such as regression and path analysis) for identifying causation’s processes and mechanisms “through action narratives and structural accounts” (Saldaña, 2013, p. 166). Furthermore, adopting a critical realist approach will often necessitate the collection of in-depth information that may reveal contextual factors and mechanisms that are undetectable by other methods such as quantitative surveys. As a consequence, an alternative form of generalisation is sought, rather than statistical generalizability: “the aim is to identify findings which are 'logically generalizable' rather than 'probabilistically' so” (Popay and Williams, 1998, p. 33).

This leaves issues of rigour to be addressed. There are those, particularly from a positivist standpoint, who believe that quality should be judged using the same or similar criteria used in the natural sciences, such as reliability, validity, and generalizability. On the other hand, there are those that recognise that qualitative and quantitative research are very different and argue that it is not suitable to judge the quality of each by applying the same criteria.

From a critical realist point of view, issues of rigour should be judged by the criteria of the methodological approach used.  

Thus, if you are using qualitative methods then issues of rigour could be addressed by the criteria presented by Lincoln and Guba (1985) who recommend four validation criteria for assessing what they refer to as 'authenticity' and 'trustworthiness' in qualitative enquiry: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.

Is this any use?

About Logic and Replication we described in a book ("P.De Giacomo: Finite Systems and Infinite Interactions. Bramble Book) a Model of Human Interactions and Changes that gave us new ideas in the field of Creativity and Psychotherapy. My Belief is that from Batesonian Interaction point of view there is a secret of mind to discover kind of Einstein formula of light speed

I'm not sure what you mean by the logic of replication. If you mean to ask are required to replicate studies in different areas, the answer is a qualified yes. 

As critical realists, while adopting an acceptance of a real world separate from us and our conception of it, we also recognize that our knowledge of that is fallible. We therefore having formed a theory of how the world is, continually test it against the world to see how far the theory applies and where it needs to be revised. In this sense we replicate our studies in an effort to expand the scope of coverage and continually develop the theory. We do not test the same thing over and over again, but rather we test the theory in new areas and under different conditions. 

What I am thinking is that you could push your mind in sexteen directions. For istance "translate your content in a metaphor, or think in the opposite drection, Introduce an abstract thougt, Maintein your thougt in any case, think in term of doubt, etc. (Following the sexteen function of Elementary Pragmatic Model). Then observe the results of your deciding the sexteen directions. The method is self evident. Does not need experimentations.The method to endorse one or more of the sexteens "Huts" create a new way of working with mind.