Let me add something trivial, yet... so often abused: Define in advance the exact question that the experiment is designed to answer. Define in advance the criteria for (in the vernacular) pass or fail. Do not post hoc shift the question or deal with post hoc complaints that the experiment didn't measure something not specified in the question to be answered.
I take some issue with #6. Positive and negative controls are usually necessary, especially in the psychoacoustic research you've done, and for that matter, in all serious psychoacoustic research. But there's some experiments I have been involved with before where positive controls were inappropriate (e.g., testing "magic," where you can't have something known to be above audible threshold because... that crap isn't actually audible). For example, what's the positive control for the presence or absence of a magic ray generator (I swear, that's a real thing)? The counterargument I sometimes hear to that is, "Well, you can put in a ringer with, say, a 0.4dB (or whatever) level change." My issue with that is that it's a determinant of the test's sensitivity to a different phenomenon than the one under test and hence not truly a positive control. I have, of course, implicitly admitted that testing the claims of charlatans is not "serious psychoacoustic research," but it's something that needs to be done.
Magic is often easier to deal with using sorting, but that's a story for a different day. Sorting tests can be a VERY powerful tool.