[
 {"id":"C1","text":"Over 60 origins (2021-09 to 2026-08), the ridge forecast has a 36.5% lower RMSE than the naive forecast (0.561 vs 0.883).","results_keys":["rmse_ridge","rmse_naive","rel_improvement_vs_naive","n_origins"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Current-vintage data, publication lags ignored."},
 {"id":"C2","text":"The ridge forecast does not beat the expanding mean: RMSE 0.561 vs 0.544 (relative improvement -3.1%), and MAE 0.451 vs 0.429.","results_keys":["rmse_ridge","rmse_mean","rel_improvement_vs_mean","mae_ridge","mae_mean"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Single lambda and single 60-month window."},
 {"id":"C3","text":"The ridge-vs-naive loss difference is statistically significant (DM p=0.0014); the ridge-vs-mean difference is not (DM p=0.59).","results_keys":["dm_stat_ridge_vs_naive","dm_pvalue_ridge_vs_naive","dm_stat_ridge_vs_mean","dm_pvalue_ridge_vs_mean"],"status":"supported","caveat":"HLN-corrected DM test with t59 reference; approximate in small samples."},
 {"id":"C4","text":"All standardisation statistics and the target mean were computed from each origin's training window only, and the training sample at the last origin has 413 rows.","results_keys":["normalisation_window","n_analysed","lambda","n_features"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Verified by in-script chronology asserts and independent recomputation (out/state/checks.md)."}
]