I think it would be better to have separate grants for replication studies. If something becomes a mandatory administrative burden, people will see it as low-prestige work and try to avoid it. And the kind of people who are good at novel research are often also good at ignoring duties they don't like, or completing them with a minimal effort if forced to.
But if there is separate funding for replication studies, it will become something people compete for. Some people will specialize on replicating others' work, and universities will pay attention, as they care about grant overheads.
> But if there is separate funding for replication studies, it will become something people compete for.
It would need to be very good funding on par with what's offered for "novel research".
In addition, we would need increased prestige (e.g. awards, citations) for replicated studies as well for this to be effective. For many academics funding is merely a means to that end.
Another reason for doing this is that if the people doing replication also do original research then calling out someone’s work as bad incentivizes them to sabotage your work when they inevitably review your papers.
You can avoid that to some extent by having replication and original work be separate specialities - and making sure that replication gets prestige so good people do it.
But if there is separate funding for replication studies, it will become something people compete for. Some people will specialize on replicating others' work, and universities will pay attention, as they care about grant overheads.