"A pre-specified analysis plan is important for ensuring that subsequent analyses and interpretations of the data are unbiased, that there is no duplication of work, and that analysis plans remain unaltered following the initial interpretation of results."
This is a very peculiar statement which, again, seems to confirm that the authors really do not understand basic methodology. If there is a predefined analysis plan then the initial interpretation must be the execution of that plan. So there are no plans to remain unaltered after execution. There are no more plans. It seems as if they want to suggest that nobody else can set up new analysis plans after the first interpretation - i.e. execution of the original analysis plan. But this has never been the way things work. Re-analysis of Mendel's work showed that he fiddled his data, even if he got the right answer. Re-analysis of data is the bedrock of a central activity in science called peer review. The job of the reviewer is to see if his or her analysis of the data confirms that the authors' analysis is legitimate. Moreover duplication of work is another central activity in science, in the form of replication. The idea that scientists have a moral duty to stop other people wasting their time duplicating their work is bizarre.
Whatever the PACE authors think they meant by this sentence it is completely spurious.