[
 {"id":"C1","text":"Exactly one reference, R3, is unverifiable; the other four (R1, R2, R4, R5) pass all three checks.","results_keys":["unverifiable_references","n_verified","reference_checks"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Finding checks involve the analyst's reading of the extract; evidence strings and arithmetic are verified by the script."},
 {"id":"C2","text":"R3's entry title and year (2024) disagree with the extract's record (different title; v1 and v2 both 2026).","results_keys":["reference_checks"],"status":"supported","caveat":""},
 {"id":"C3","text":"R3's attributed finding misstates timing: the extract reports about 0.5% in the event year rising gradually to 3.4-3.7% by years four and five, not an immediate jump with no later appreciation.","results_keys":["reference_checks"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Locator: Section 3.2 and Table 3, Clean-onset threshold-2 row."},
 {"id":"C4","text":"R1's cited ATT -0.431 (SE 0.210) matches Table 6, though Table A19 prints SE 0.218 for the same estimate; this inconsistency does not change the verdict.","results_keys":["reference_checks","data_issues"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Source-internal inconsistency unresolved."},
 {"id":"C5","text":"A naive number-match baseline finds all cited numbers in every extract and would not detect R3's timing misattribution.","results_keys":["baseline_naive_number_match"],"status":"supported","caveat":"R3 is flagged anyway by title and year checks."}
]