In empirical software engineering research, we use "replication package" as term of art for artifacts shared to enable others to rerun a scientific experiment.

Sadly, it is a semantically wrong expression. It should be called "reproducibility package" instead.

The former (replication) is for a "Different team, [with a] different experimental setup" to rerun experiment, which is not the goal.

The latter (reproducibility) is for a "Different team, [with the] same experimental setup", which is.

Ironically, the (wrong) term of art is very popular in ACM conferences, which precisely define the terms in its artifact review and badging guidelines (version 1.1, current): https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/artifact-review-and-badging-current

(Yes, I know this comes from the historical mistake ACM did with version 1.0, where the definitions were wrong. But it has been fixed 6 years ago, in 2020.)

Artifact Review and Badging - Current

Result and Artifact Review documentation and badges - V.1.1