This is an important debate, but the report seems pretty fragmented. Much of it seems to just state some epistemological views, without addressing the question of how different epistemological views actually see practices of transparency or openness.
It might be useful to spell out actual examples that show roughly what "open" and rigorous research would look like within these different epistemologies.
Sections I.1 and I.2, especially, provide a rich history of ideas. That's really interesting, even though the report could recognize more explicitly that this is ONE interpretation of that history, rather that the one and only true account. But the report doesn't really come back around to addressing the question what scholarly good/best practices follow for knowledge production and research integrity. Would be especially important since I'm not sure anyone in Political Science really is a "positivist" in the sense of section I.2 anymore. Even the final section on "Interpretivist Traditions and the Critique of Transparency" does not go much beyond the critique.