[
 {"id":"C1","text":"The conventional OLS 95% interval does not attain nominal coverage under this design: estimated coverage 0.844, more than three MC standard errors below 0.95.","results_keys":["coverage_conventional","conventional_ci_undercovers"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Specific to this fixed design, normal errors, n=30; MCSE ~0.008 at R=2000."},
 {"id":"C2","text":"The HC1 robust interval covers better (0.902) but still falls short of 95% at n=30.","results_keys":["coverage_hc1"],"status":"supported","caveat":"MCSE ~0.0067; HC2/HC3 not evaluated."},
 {"id":"C3","text":"The conventional SE is biased downward: its mean (0.190) is well below the exact SD of the slope estimator (0.268).","results_keys":["mean_se_conventional","sd_beta_exact"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Mean se_conv is a Monte Carlo estimate."},
 {"id":"C4","text":"The simulated SD of the slope estimator (0.270) agrees with the analytic exact SD (0.268) within Monte Carlo error, validating the simulation.","results_keys":["sd_beta_mc","sd_beta_exact"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Relative MC error of the SD is about 1.6%."}
]