Again you are talking about the framework as if it is exactly the same thing as the papers that attempt to describe it. It is not. Your statement that "deductive frameworks can't be wrong" is irrelevant to the question of whether a math paper can be wrong. If I prove something, it can be wrong, and it may turn out that I haven't proved it at all, but I can still call it a proof, convince other people it's correct, get it published in a journal, and have other mathematicians rely on it before the mistake is discovered. Papers can be flawed. The papers are not the framework. The reason you think they are the same thing is probably that mathematics has not had that many big mistakes recently, since the renewed effort on solid foundations last century, which means the system is working.

You can't define your way out of the fact that mathematicians will make mistakes and write papers that draw conclusions that are not valid. They are just pretty good at discovering the mistakes, and finding them is culturally essential to the practice of mathematics; arguably if it were not, it would be a big game of Numberwang. Psychologists are, on the other hand, not nearly as good at discovering mistakes. We didn't have to use any properties of the self-containedness of the disciplines to get to that result. It was not necessary to prove mathematically that mathematics does not or cannot have a replication problem. You can just observe it.

(Edit, all of that in brief: if it were truly impossible to be wrong in maths, then why do mathematicians spend so much time trying to verify each others' proofs? Are they wasting their time? Or is it the entire reason there isn't a replication problem?)