{ "background": "Difference-in-differences (DiD) models are increasingly applied in engineering asset management to evaluate the impact of interventions on system reliability. A prior study proposed a specific DiD framework for assessing maintenance policy changes on heavy machinery fleets, but its methodological robustness and applicability in a sub-Saharan African context required independent verification.", "purpose and objectives": "This study aimed to replicate and critically evaluate the methodological application of a published DiD model for analysing industrial machinery fleet reliability. The objective was to assess the model's assumptions, estimation stability, and practical utility within the Tanzanian industrial sector.", "methodology": "We executed a direct replication using the original model specification, $Y{it} = \\beta0 + \\beta1 \\text{Treat}i + \\beta2 \\text{Post}t + \\delta \\text{Treat}i \\cdot \\text{Post}t + \\epsilon_{it}$, on operational data from a comparable fleet. A methodological evaluation followed, testing parallel trends, conducting placebo tests, and re-estimating with cluster-robust standard errors to account for fleet-level heterogeneity.", "findings": "The replication yielded a positive point estimate for the treatment effect ($\\delta = 0.18$) consistent with the original study, but the 95% confidence interval was wide and included zero. The methodological evaluation revealed a significant violation of the parallel trends assumption in the pre-intervention period, casting doubt on the causal interpretation of the estimated effect.", "conclusion": "While the DiD framework is conceptually valuable for engineering management, the direct application of the specific model was not robust in this context. Key identifying assumptions were not met, suggesting the original findings may be sensitive to unobserved confounders or specific fleet characteristics.", "recommendations": "Future applications of DiD in asset reliability studies must incorporate rigorous pre-testing of model assumptions and consider alternative quasi-experimental designs. Analysts should prioritise diagnostic checks over point estimates when drawing causal inferences from observational