I think so. But a big part of the article's complaint is that we usually don't even bother checking.

The reason the article resonated with me is because policies and interventions are often sold as "this thing is self-evidently great, and if you oppose it you're an idiot/jerk", rather than "this seems promising, so let's give it a try and scale it up if it works well". When I look at proposed measures at my local government level (for example) almost all of the supporting literature focuses on why the problem is important, rather than why the proposed interventions are likely to succeed. Being "effective" as a legislator means enacting policy, so if you want to be effective you try to keep the conversation on the first part, where it's easier to find agreement.