Published small-business surveys often report moderation coefficients, simple slopes, and model fit separately. This methodological secondary analysis examines published summaries from a survey of 350 SME-associated respondents in Pakistan; it does not re-estimate the authors’ structural model. If the reported correlations refer to the same standardized scores, an additive two-predictor regression would explain 7.184% of the variance in self-reported success, including 1.906% of shared additive association. If those scores and the published path coefficients also enter one common standardized-score regression, the coefficients imply an interaction-model R2 of 0.42188, whereas the figure reports 0.444; ordinary three-decimal rounding cannot bridge the gap. Holding the other inputs fixed would require a product coefficient of 0.61525 rather than 0.597. Separately, the three displayed conditional slopes place the mean-diversity evaluation only 6.12% of the way from low to high, although their labels specify equally spaced −1, 0, and +1 standard deviations. These are conditional reconciliation diagnostics, not corrected coefficients or evidence that the underlying SmartPLS model was fitted incorrectly: its score definitions, product normalization, coefficient covariance, evaluation points, and respondent structure were unavailable. The reported summaries alone cannot establish an interpretable leadership–diversity complementarity effect.
