[
 {"id":"C1","text":"The conventional nominal 95% OLS interval does not attain nominal coverage: estimated coverage 0.844, below 0.95 by more than three binomial MC standard errors.","results_keys":["coverage_conventional","conventional_ci_undercovers","undercoverage_threshold","mcse_coverage_conventional"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Specific to this fixed design, normal errors, R=2000 and seed 20261030."},
 {"id":"C2","text":"The HC1 interval covers much better (0.902) but remains below 95% at n=30.","results_keys":["coverage_hc1","mcse_coverage_hc1"],"status":"supported","caveat":"No formal threshold test was required for HC1; the shortfall is many MC SEs."},
 {"id":"C3","text":"The conventional SE is downward biased: mean se_conv 0.190 vs exact SD of beta-hat 0.268.","results_keys":["mean_se_conventional","sd_beta_exact","sqrt_expected_se_conv_sq_exact"],"status":"supported","caveat":"mean_se_conventional is a MC estimate."},
 {"id":"C4","text":"The Monte Carlo SD of beta-hat (0.2696) agrees with the analytical exact SD (0.2680).","results_keys":["sd_beta_mc","sd_beta_exact"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Agreement within MC error of an SD estimate (~0.4 SE)."}
]