Given that the contextual interference (CI) phenomenon is one of the most extensively studied and debated topics in motor learning--featured prominently in scientific literature, textbooks, and practitioner guides--it is unsurprising that recent meta-analyses on the topic have generated critical discussion and contrasting interpretations. This article responds comprehensively to the commentary by Czyz (2025) on our recent meta-analytic work evaluating CI effects across acquisition, retention, and transfer phases in sports related movements. We systematically address their methodological critiques, clarify inclusion decisions, and challenge inconsistencies in their own analytic approach and interpretation--particularly regarding baseline equivalence, study exclusion, and epistemologically inadmissible generalized claims. In addition to a detailed point-by-point rebuttal, we provide a comparative evaluation of recent CI-related meta-analyses and offer a broader reflection on the current state of meta-analytic practice in motor learning. We highlight concerns related to statistical ritualism, inconsistent quality control, and the growing redundancy of evidence syntheses. Finally, we present targeted recommendations for future research, including the need for high-quality randomized controlled trials, field-specific quality appraisal tools, and comprehensive umbrella reviews to better integrate fragmented evidence. Collectively, these reflections aim to enhance methodological standards and ensure more context-sensitive and scientifically sound conclusions in CI and broader motor learning research.