Here's my experiment.
First picture is of the experimental setup. An effort was made to ensure consistent placement of the probes. The cups and probes were set up, then 9 oz water from different sources was poured into a graduated shot-mixer, then into each cup. Then the whole setup was placed in the freezer. You can't see the starting temps from the graph (I zoomed into the freezing area), but they were about 170F, 106F, 68F, and 48F. There was some effect of using the same mixer and the room-temp start of the cups, ie the 170F water came straight off the stove, boiling, the 106F water came from the tap probably at about 125F, and the 48F water came from the fridge, probably at around 35F. I doubt that this had an impact on the test.
My water is unusually hard.
Some of the temperature probes were off by as much as 1.5F, and I performed a second experiment with one cup and all four probes rubber-banded together to normalize the data. I normalized to 32F, but I don't know if the real freezing temp might have been lower due to the dissolved minerals. This isn't critical though, only the timing is critical.
As you can see from the graph, the test failed to find the effect. Assuming freezing starts the instant the subcooling breaks, they started to freeze, in ascending order of starting temp, at 32:50, 49:40, 1:15:40, and 1:30:10. The intervals follow the temperature slope almost exactly.
Spikes that happen simultaneously are likely due to the compressor cycling. I did not open the door during the test.
I have no explanation for the temporary flattening of each cooling curve at 37F. It appears the first paper ZZ linked also showed this "novel transition".
The first paper ZZ linked suggested the possibility that the initially hot water might undergo less subcooling. My results don't show this. However, given just how much supercooling they show, the impurities in my water may make it tougher to supercool. So they may be right that the supercooling is where the effect comes from.
Yes, I have too much time on my hands.