We performed a very complicated measurement in the high-energy physics field and now as a PhD, I am doing the data analysis. The setup has two detectors, one of which broke. Therefore, we only have information from one detector. The thing is, both detectors are crucial to reach the final goal of the measurement. Instead, we have only one working but we know why the other one accidentally died during the experiment. So, I suppose this is neither wrong methodology nor it is a null hypothesis. As much as I hate the term, it is a failed experiment due to mistakes that could've been avoided.
The question is, how would one extract something publishable from such data? Would it be enough to state what I did and why it failed?