{
  "task_id": "F4-conf-02",
  "verdicts": {
    "A1": "supported",
    "A2": "not_supported",
    "A3": "not_supported",
    "A4": "not_supported",
    "A5": "not_assessable",
    "A6": "supported"
  },
  "locators": {
    "A1": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 6 | row \"ATT\" / \"% change\" | column \"5 km\"",
    "A2": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 7 | row \"HIV\" | column \"1 km\"",
    "A3": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 6 | row \"% change\" | column \"3 km\"",
    "A4": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 7 | row \"Hepatitis\" | column \"5 km\"",
    "A5": "not reported in arxiv-2609.27732v1",
    "A6": "arxiv-2606.14621v1 | Table 2 | row \"Weeks on UI\" | column \"Average treatment effect estimate\""
  },
  "reasons": {
    "A1": "Table 6 prints ATT -0.431** (0.210) and -35.0% at 5 km, with ** denoting p<0.05, matching every element (100*(exp(-0.431)-1) = -35.0%).",
    "A2": "Table 7 prints the 1 km HIV ATT as +0.063 (SE 0.801), positive and insignificant, so the sign and the claimed fall in HIV hospitalisations are contradicted.",
    "A3": "Table 6 converts the 3 km ATT of -0.283 to -24.7% (100*(exp(-0.283)-1) = -24.6%), not 28.3%; the assertion equates log points with percent (and omits that the estimate is insignificant, SE 0.279).",
    "A4": "With ATT -0.406 and SE 0.250 the 95% CI is [-0.90, 0.08] (±1.96·SE), which includes zero (the asserted [-0.66, -0.16] is ±1·SE) and the estimate carries no significance star.",
    "A5": "The extract reports ATTs only by buffer, outcome category and estimator (Tables 6, 7, A19) and contains no estimate by sex, so the men-vs-women comparison can be neither confirmed nor refuted.",
    "A6": "Table 2 prints the ATE as -1.99 weeks (95% CI [-2.24, -1.75]) against a control mean of 17.3 weeks, and 1.99/17.3 = 11.5%, matching the 11.5% stated in the Section 3 text."
  },
  "n_supported": 2,
  "n_not_supported": 3,
  "n_not_assessable": 1,
  "feasibility": "complete",
  "feasibility_reason": null,
  "data_issues": [
    {
      "issue": "Table A19 reports the CS-DR 5 km ATT -0.431** with SE (0.218), while Table 6 reports the same estimate with SE (0.210).",
      "handling": "A1 cites the main Table 6 and asserts SE 0.210; judged against Table 6. Significance at 5% holds under either SE (|t|=2.05 or 1.98 vs 1.96); noted as an internal inconsistency."
    },
    {
      "issue": "Table A19 note states 640 never-treated comparison regions, while Tables 6/7, A19 body and Figure 6 note state 608.",
      "handling": "Not decisive for any assertion; recorded only."
    },
    {
      "issue": "Abstract says fatal hospitalisations 'fall by 35%', whereas Table 7 (-0.354 at 5 km) implies -29.8% and Section 6.1 says 'approximately 30%'.",
      "handling": "Not decisive for any assertion; recorded only."
    },
    {
      "issue": "Results text says HIV estimates are 'close to zero', though the 5 km HIV ATT is -0.340 (insignificant).",
      "handling": "A2 judged on the Table 7 number (1 km = +0.063), not the prose."
    },
    {
      "issue": "RESEA text writes the weeks-on-UI CI as positive magnitudes '[1.75 weeks, 2.24 weeks]' for the reduction, while Table 2 gives [-2.24, -1.75]; also a rendering defect 'p ¡ 0.001' in Section 3.",
      "handling": "Sign-convention difference only; A6 judged against Table 2 values, which are consistent with the text."
    }
  ],
  "n_input_rows": {
    "assertions.json": 6,
    "README.md": 14,
    "sources/arxiv-2609.27732v1.txt": 134,
    "sources/arxiv-2606.14621v1.txt": 58
  },
  "n_analysed": 6,
  "random_seed": null
}