[
 {"id":"C1","text":"The unadjusted association between training hours and next-year productivity growth is negative (-0.132 pp/hour, 95% CI [-0.160, -0.103]).","results_keys":["naive_estimate","naive_ci_low","naive_ci_high"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Association only; confounded by baseline skill."},
 {"id":"C2","text":"Conditional on baseline skill_index, one extra training hour per employee raises productivity growth by about 0.254 pp (95% CI [0.234, 0.273], HC1 SE 0.0098); conclusion positive_effect.","results_keys":["effect_estimate","effect_se","effect_ci_low","effect_ci_high","conclusion"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Causal only under selection on observables with skill_index as the sole confounder, and linearity; untestable with these data."},
 {"id":"C3","text":"The sign reversal is explained by confounding: skill is positively correlated with hours and negatively related to growth.","results_keys":["corr_hours_skill","skill_index_coefficient","naive_estimate","effect_estimate"],"status":"supported","caveat":"OVB identity verified numerically in checks.md."},
 {"id":"C4","text":"Adjusting for skill roughly halves residual RMSE (3.86 to 1.98 pp).","results_keys":["baseline_metric","model_metric"],"status":"supported","caveat":"In-sample fit; the adjusted model nests the unadjusted one."},
 {"id":"C5","text":"The effect estimate is robust to handling of the 12 negative-hours rows and to quadratic/cubic skill terms (0.252-0.254).","results_keys":["sens_effect_all_rows","sens_effect_censored0","sens_effect_skill_sq","sens_effect_skill_cubic","data_issues","n_analysed"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Robustness to unobserved confounding was not and cannot be assessed."}
]