Are perfect-reduplication and quasi-reduplication related?

[MarcoP]

Hi David,
thank you very much for checking these numbers: this is quite helpful to me! You already helped my correct one error and it is well possible it was not the only one.

%Red and %Quasi are independent in principle, but they appear to be correlated in the VMS.
I added the C values (number of word-couples) for each row here. I also add MATTR200 which, as Koen pointed out, is significantly anti-correlated with %Red. For MATTR, I used a slightly modified version of Nablator's java class. 

Obviously, reduplication contributes to lower MATTR, but the instances of reduplication, however numerous, are not enough to have a great impact: I have to reflect more about this. Of course, MATTR should be totally independent on quasi-reduplication, but in the VMS both appear to be correlated with Reduplication and (somehow more weakly) correlated with each other.
I would also like to test with scrambled versions as suggested by Koen.

At the bottom of the table, I include an example for a simple synthetic file (attached): an extreme case that could help clarify things.

            C  N.Red %Red N.Quasi %Qs MATTR200
Herbal_B  3268  20  0.612   63   1.928  0.767
AstroCZ   1756  11  0.626   24   1.367  0.776
Pharma    2167  16  0.738   44   2.030  0.752
StarsQ20 10091  75  0.743  223   2.210  0.771
Herbal_A  7496  68  0.907  180   2.401  0.752
BioQ13    6347  66  1.040  163   2.568  0.654
-------------------
50_redup   400 200 50.000   40  10.000  0.050

the equation %red = %quasi/(n.Quasi/n.Red) is always true.

Yes, the equation is always true.
Since %quasi/N.Quasi is 1/C, you can rewrite the equation as
%red=n.Red/C, which is true by definition.

BTW, my OpenOffice gives 0.476 for CORREL(%red;%quasi) using your data. I attach the spreadsheet here: 

Please, check the value of C4. Shouldn't it be 0.738 to match my data?