When a recipe has a formal technique spec behind it, does that change how you evaluate whether it's worth repeating?

Thinking about the difference between recipes that come with precise procedural detail, specific timing, exact weights, temperature targets, and those that are written more loosely. For the purpose of this list, does the level of technical documentation affect your judgment about repeatability? A recipe with tight specs is easier to reproduce consistently, but I wonder if that reliability is what actually drives the decision to make something again, or whether it's more about the result itself regardless of how well the method was recorded. Also curious whether people find that having detailed notes from a first attempt changes their rating of a recipe retroactively, since you're essentially comparing a controlled second run against a less controlled first one.