I vote for keeping and maintaining (not completely freezing) a very small number of canonical answers. I do not think this particular forum will ever be able to provide a convergent answer regarding the various experiments loosely labeled under "cold fusion."
I've had some wonderful opportunities to communicate and talk directly with solid researchers in this topic, at government-only facilities that I trust and respect. These are solid folks with strong publication records in unrelated materials science fields. I am familiar in particular with work done by good folks at both SPAWAR and NRL, who rather ironically do not always see eye to eye even with each other's published results.
I consider Rob Duncan of Mizzou a personal friend and someone whose opinion I respect, although I have not interacted with him much since we co-presented a few years back on the physics of "cold fusion." I have interacted with other players. Some I refuse to have anything to do with because they are quacks, by which I mean simply that they rely on marketing techniques over experimental evidence to promote their particular views. For the record, Ron Maimon's theorizing here in Physics SE is straightforward and honest, even if Ron can be rather adamant and tends to favor conspiracy theories a bit much.
There are two reasons why this issue will never be resolved in this forum: (1) A certain subset of the reported results are quite real. I've talked to too many solid researchers who are getting data that makes no sense according to either chemistry or nuclear science, yet the data they are getting is self-consistent and detailed in ways that indicate that unknown underlying mechanisms more subtle than just "making heat" or "fusing nuclei." (2) This subset of scientifically interesting results cannot be explained using any combination of known physics.
Catch that second part? This is not complicated. You can theorize all you want about how to design a meter-wide wooden box capable of containing a nuclear explosion, but guess what? It won't work. Scale that down to atomic size and there is your problem for any theory that tries to combine chemical heat with nuclear reactions. The more persuasive reported results combine far too much energy release with too few ways to capture it.
When that sort of situation occurs in science -- and it does more often than you might expect -- it tends not to resolve itself very quickly. The emergence of quantum physics was arguably one of the most conspicuous and unexpected examples. Mechanical and electromagnetic theory were very mature around 1900, so they just did not have much obvious room for new ideas. However, a number of annoying experiments kept giving results that made no sense according to that same mature body of theory. It took two or three decades of bumbling around, often very ineptly at first, to finally get a clear handle on what was really going in those exceptions. It's a good thing they bothered, though.
Traditionally, such situations in science always get very personal and sometimes quite nasty. There was a great story in the early history of molecular gases where one prominent figure accused another of "sloppy experiments" when the experimenter did not get results that match theory. This is the norm for such situations, not the exception, and it's not much fun for anyone involved.
So, am I seriously suggesting that that some kind of dramatic revolution in fundamental physics will be needed to explain some of these results?
Well, sure. But I cannot suggest where the opportunity for that resolution may lie. As in the 1900s for the narrower range of mechanics and electromagnetics, our understanding at the moment of the physical universe is very beautifully and quite elegantly buttoned down for just about every aspect and scale of our universe except these annoying excess heat results. Even tougher, any new theory must explain such odd results without discarding or distorting any significant aspect of current physical theory, since that theory is after all extraordinarily effective at describing our universe. Quantum theory in the early 1900s was a very non-intuitive extension of known mechanical and electromagnetic theory, not a replacement for it. The distinction between extension and replacement is critical.
It should be fun to watch.
Bottom line: A forum like Physics SE is about the worst possible forum for trying to resolve such an issue, because the resolution does not yet exist.
So please, don't try to resolve this mess here, because it just won't happen. Attempting to do so will only cause a lot more distress to everyone, again for the simple reason that you cannot entice someone to contribute an answer that does not yet exist.
Instead, maintaining a small number of canonical answers describing why the problem refuses to go away is probably about the best that SE Physics can do. That's honest, and it minimizes the danger of this forum from turning into a racquetball court for lobbing new theories at bystanders.