Three more test cases:
The good: Under ‘Why is it string.join(list) instead of list.join(string)?’, the script puts an answer that points to the actual mailing list discussions where this was decided (+356 / −0) at the top, above the top-voted just-so story that doesn’t actually justify the choice (+1326 / −5). I think this one counts as a success as well.
The bad: On the other hand, under ‘Is RefCell an appropriate workaround to borrow two mutable elements from a vector?’, my answer (+3 / −0) appears below the accepted answer (+1 / −0). The accepted answer is perfectly fine, but the fact that apparently the harshness adjustment (picking lower points from the confidence interval for answers with more votes) makes scores non-monotonic is a little concerning. Maybe I should tweak the adjustment or ditch it altogether.
The meh: Under ‘What algorithm did Microsoft use to dither colour in early versions of Windows?’, which I dare claim to be probably one of the worst victims of the fastest-gun problem, my own in-depth researched answer (+15 / −0) appears third, while the accepted misleading answer (+170 / −1) appears first, just like with naïve scoring. I don’t think any other scoring method could do much better here, though. There is only so much information that can be drawn from vote counts alone. For my answer to rise to the top under the ‘Best’ order would require people to vote down answers simply for being incomplete.
(Update: my answer now moved to the second spot under the weighted-Wilson-score order, scored +22 / −0, but is still below the naïvely-top-scored +171 / −1 one.)