The development of high-quality software depends on precise and comprehensive requirements that meet the objectives of stakeholders. Goal modeling techniques have been developed to fill this gap by capturing and analyzing stakeholders' needs and allowing them to make trade-off decisions; yet, goal modeling analysis is often difficult for stakeholders to interpret. Recent work found that when subjects are given minimal training on goal modeling and access to a color visualization, called EVO, they are able to use EVO to make goal modeling decisions faster without compromising quality. In this paper, we evaluate the robustness of the empirical evidence for EVO and question the underlying color choices made by the initial designers of EVO. We conduct a pseudo-exact replication$(n=60)$of the original EVO study, varying the experimental site and the study population. Even in our heterogeneous sample with less a priori familiarity with requirements and goal modeling, we find that individuals using EVO answered the goal-modeling questions significantly faster than those using the control, expanding the external validity of the original results. However, we find some evidence that the chosen color scheme is not intuitive and make recommendations for the goal modeling community.