Referring to your paper: Structuring supplemental materials in support of reproducibility

Q:
I just read your paper mentioned above. I work in the area of
computational reproducibility so the paper was pretty interesting to
read. However, I stumbled a bit over one of your concluding remarks. You
are saying

"One useful tactic may be detailed sampling: perhaps it is best for the
editor to organize a system wherein, randomly, referees are asked to
review samples in greater detail to ensure the overall quality of the
supplements without quickly overwhelming the peer review system."

I am not sure whether I understood correctly how this could be
implemented. Does it mean that the editor randomly asks one of the
reviewers to look at the supplements, or do all reviewers look at
subsets of supplements? I find this idea pretty interesting and was
wondering whether you have published further articles on this topic?

A:
With respect to: "Does it mean that the editor randomly asks one of the reviewers to look at the supplements, or do all reviewers look at subsets of supplements?"
—> The former

With respect to: "I find this idea pretty interesting and was wondering whether you have published further articles on this topic?"
—> Not exactly.., but you might find useful the related work:
http://papers.gersteinlab.org/papers/structbl
http://papers.gersteinlab.org/papers/SDA