{
  "task_id": "F4-conf-03",
  "harmonised": {
    "E1": {
      "value": -35.01410892252505,
      "unit": "percent (relative change vs counterfactual rate)",
      "transformation": "100*(exp(b)-1) with b=-0.431 -> 100*(exp(-0.431)-1) = -35.0141% (printed check: -35.0%)",
      "harmonisable": true,
      "missing_quantity": null,
      "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 6 | row 'ATT' (line 36) | column '5 km' = -0.431**; cross-check row '% change' (line 40) | column '5 km' = -35.0%"
    },
    "E2": {
      "value": 1.96,
      "unit": "percent (relative change vs control-group mean)",
      "transformation": "100*Delta/p with Delta=1.47 pp, p=75.0% -> 100*1.47/75.0 = 1.9600%",
      "harmonisable": true,
      "missing_quantity": null,
      "locator": "arxiv-2606.14621v1 | Table 2 | row 'Reemployment' (line 29) | column 'Average treatment effect estimate' = 1.47 pp; column 'Control' = 75.0%"
    },
    "E3": {
      "value": -1.8236,
      "unit": "percent (relative change in employment)",
      "transformation": "100*eta*g with eta=-0.388, g=0.047 (proportional MW change) -> 100*(-0.388)*(0.047) = -1.8236%",
      "harmonisable": true,
      "missing_quantity": null,
      "locator": "arxiv-2505.04555v3 | Table 2 | row 'Employment elasticity w.r.t MW' (line 50) | column 'Estimate (SE)' = -0.388; row '% MW changes' (line 60) | column 'Estimate (SE)' = 0.047"
    },
    "E4": {
      "value": null,
      "unit": "hospitalisations per 100,000 inhabitants per year",
      "transformation": "Absolute change = R0*(exp(b)-1) with b=-0.354 -> R0*(-0.2981); R0 (counterfactual/baseline fatal drug-related hospitalisation rate per 100,000 in treated 5 km regions) is not printed in the extract, so the value cannot be computed",
      "harmonisable": false,
      "missing_quantity": "baseline (counterfactual, e.g. pre-opening or control-group mean) level of the fatal drug-related hospitalisation rate per 100,000 inhabitants per year for the treated 5 km regions",
      "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 7 | row 'Drug-related (fatal)' (line 86) | column '5 km' = -0.354**"
    },
    "E5": {
      "value": -9.62,
      "unit": "percentage points",
      "transformation": "100*beta with beta=-0.0962 (0-1 scale) -> 100*(-0.0962) = -9.62 pp",
      "harmonisable": true,
      "missing_quantity": null,
      "locator": "arxiv-2510.03658v1 | Table 3 | row 'Treatment' (line 49) | column '(4)' = -0.0962"
    }
  },
  "n_harmonised": 4,
  "n_not_harmonisable": 1,
  "feasibility": "complete",
  "feasibility_reason": null,
  "data_issues": [
    {
      "issue": "arxiv-2609.27732v1: abstract says fatal outcomes 'fall by 35%', whereas Section 6.1 says 'approximately 30% at 5 km'; Table 7 5 km fatal ATT -0.354 implies 100*(exp(-0.354)-1) = -29.8%, consistent with ~30% not 35%.",
      "handling": "E4 is based on the Table 7 coefficient only; the abstract figure is not used. Noted as an internal inconsistency of the source."
    },
    {
      "issue": "arxiv-2609.27732v1: the CS-DR 5 km ATT -0.431 has SE (0.210) in Table 6 but (0.218) in Table A19; Table 6 note says 608 control regions while the Table A19 note says 640 never-treated comparison regions (Table A19 body says 608).",
      "handling": "Point estimate identical in both tables, so E1 is unaffected; no SE is propagated. Recorded only."
    },
    {
      "issue": "arxiv-2505.04555v3: Table 2 prints '% MW changes' = 0.047 (4.7%) while the table note describes the 2023 change as 'about 4% minimum wage increase'.",
      "handling": "E3 uses the printed table value g=0.047, as the target definition asks for the size printed in the same table; with 0.04 the implied change would be -1.5520% (reported for transparency only)."
    },
    {
      "issue": "arxiv-2510.03658v1: the abstract and Section 4.1 describe -0.0855 as 'a 18.79 percentage change' (a relative change computed against a mean of 0.455), and Section 4.1 attributes it to 'table 2', which is not in the extract; Table 3 relative change (-0.3685) is computed against the overall dependent-variable mean (0.261), not a counterfactual level.",
      "handling": "E5 only requires rescaling the Table 3 column (4) LPM coefficient to percentage points (exact); the relative-change figures are not used."
    },
    {
      "issue": "arxiv-2606.14621v1: the abstract rounds the reemployment ATE to 1.5 pp; Table 2 prints 1.47 pp. The ATE is block-adjusted while the 75.0% control mean is the raw (unadjusted) aggregate control-group mean.",
      "handling": "E2 uses the Table 2 values (1.47 pp, 75.0%) exactly as the target definition (percent of the control-group mean) specifies; noted as a caveat."
    }
  ],
  "n_input_rows": {
    "effects.json": 5,
    "README.md": 16,
    "arxiv-2505.04555v3.txt": 66,
    "arxiv-2510.03658v1.txt": 91,
    "arxiv-2606.14621v1.txt": 58,
    "arxiv-2609.27732v1.txt": 134
  },
  "n_analysed": 5,
  "random_seed": null
}