I will disagree with where the heart is but that is a quibble this thread does not need. You have started a good one and I do not want to fall into distraction.
Our stranded scientist could indeed follow the necessary processes you outline in your OP and could still be well off the mark because he does not have the community of information necessary to confirm his work. We all know of well qualified scientists doing rigorous scientific work who befall the trap of unconscious data mining or, being alone on a desert island, neglect to consider other explanations for the observations made.
And if this thread is intended for Peg and others as instruction then I feel the method must include the processes that give assurance that some particular finding meets the standards of scientific quality and that can only be done through Peer Review.
The replication aspect was not replication by the same team but a separate group trying to duplicate the results as part of the Peer Review process. Think Pons and Fleischmann.
In the absence of a peer review process, I contend our stranded scientist is capable of following a rigorous method but is incapable of calling it science until others have said grace over it.
Further, I contend that as instruction for beginners it is imparative they understand that scientists do not operate in a vacuum (nor a desert island) and their work, not matter how well they follow the other processes in the method, is not science until the rest of us say it is science.
™ Version 4.2
