I’ve been re-visiting the various multiproxy studies with respect to scale and variability. In addition, as you know, one of my interests in these multiproxy studies is the non-robustness of MWP-modern levels to a very few non-independent proxies, used in multiple studies – in particular: bristlecones, Polar Urals and Thompson’s Himalayan dO18 series – each of which has problems as temperature proxies for different reasons. Obviously, a supposedly "robust" conclusion in multiple multiproxy studies should be robust to the presence/absence of a few potentially problematic series. Here’s an examination of Yang et al  from that point of view. The composite series from Yang et al  is the most heavily-weighted contributor to Mann and Jones  and Moberg et al . The Yang composite and the North American PC1 (bristlecones) dominate the Mann and Jones  reconstruction, making other series essentially irrelevant. Its contribution to Moberg is less marked, but it is one of only 3-4 series that provide a strong 20th century.
I posted up once earlier on Yang et al  here , raising some questions about some of the proxies. The Yang composite is NOT independent of the sterotype subset, since it contains both the Thompson Guliya and Dunde series. The figure below plots all the series in the Yang composite (in s.d. units). The bottom right panel (red) shows the unweighted average (Yang also calculates a weighted average of 7 mainland China series and a "high-res" average without lake sediment and peat series 6-8). The blue series in the bottom right panel is the same series without two Thompson series, showing a very different MWP-modern relationship: without the Thompson series, the MWP values exceed 20th century values. I will be using the blue series in some experiments.
Figure 1. Individual series from Yang et al  together with composite (red) and composite without Thompson series (blue).