I'm a scientist in a group that also includes a software production team. For me, the standard of scientific reproducibility is that a result can be replicated by a reasonably skilled person, who might even need to fill in some minor details themselves.

Part of our process involves cleaning up code to a higher state of refinement as it gets closer to entering the production pipeline.

I've tested 30 year old code, and it still runs, though I had to dig up a copy of Turbo Pascal, and much of it no longer exists in computer readable form but would have to be re-entered by hand. Life was actually simpler back then -- with the exception of the built-ins of Turbo Pascal, it has no dependencies.

My code was in fact adopted by two other research groups with only minor changes needed to suit slightly different experimental conditions. It contained many cross-checks, though we were unaware of modern software testing concepts at the time.

For a result to have broader or lasting impact, replication is not enough. The result has to fit into a broader web of results that reinforce one another and are extended or turned into something useful. That's the point where precise replication of minor supporting results becomes less important. The quality of any specific experiment done in support of modern electromagnetic theory would probably give you the heebie jeebies, but the overall theory is profoundly robust.

The same thing has to happen when going from prototype to production. Also, production requires what I call push-button replication. It has to replicate itself at the click of a mouse, because the production team doesn't have domain experts who can even critique the entirety of their own code, and maintaining their code would be nearly impossible if it didn't adhere to standards that make it maintainable by multiple people at once.