{
 "validation_errors": [],
 "repairs": [
  "hoisted tables.figures -> figures",
  "hoisted tables.conclusion -> conclusion",
  "hoisted tables.hedging -> hedging",
  "hoisted tables.claim_evidence -> claim_evidence"
 ],
 "doc_id": "jof_12900",
 "ontology_version": "1.0",
 "prompt_version": "1.0",
 "model": "claude-opus-5-5",
 "effort": "medium",
 "annotated_at": "2026-11-03T23:26:54+00:00",
 "source_sha256": "f37dbb22f2499faa93a32eed5eb6241fb26e28d5f0ed6739729ad53810016d6b",
 "parser": "pymupdf-jof-heuristics-1.3",
 "payload_chars": 21270,
 "usage": {
  "input": 7173,
  "output": 2263,
  "cache_read": 3968,
  "cache_write": 0
 },
 "cost_usd": 0.074746,
 "request_id": "req_011CggqtCrPoWtU55iEzQ87w",
 "annotation": {
  "genre": "mixed_theory_empirical",
  "subfield": "financial_intermediation_banking",
  "subfield_secondary": "structural estimation of asymmetric information in credit markets / macro-finance (credit crunch)",
  "primary_method": "structural_estimation",
  "identification": {
   "estimand": "Magnitude of the information gap (incumbent lenders' private information) and its contribution to the decline in lending during the 2007-2009 crisis",
   "strategy": "Two-stage discrete-choice model of renewal and new relationship formation. Bank lending-capacity shocks separate private from common information. Renewers serve as a benchmark, and the second stage uses non-renewing firms while correcting for selection on common information.",
   "key_assumptions": [
    "Bank shocks to lending ability are unrelated to unobservable borrower characteristics",
    "Distribution of borrower unobservables and the lending rule are common across lenders up to a matching error orthogonal to the previous lender's shock"
   ],
   "threats_addressed": [
    "Confounding of private information with common information unobservable to the econometrician",
    "Mechanical selection of non-renewing firms on common information",
    "Matching errors (Monte Carlo)"
   ],
   "causal_language_strength": 3,
   "uses_causal_claim": true
  },
  "abstract_moves": {
   "question": {
    "present": true,
    "sentence_index": 0
   },
   "gap": {
    "present": false,
    "sentence_index": -1
   },
   "method": {
    "present": true,
    "sentence_index": 2
   },
   "results": {
    "present": true,
    "sentence_index": 3
   },
   "magnitude": {
    "present": false,
    "sentence_index": -1
   },
   "contribution": {
    "present": true,
    "sentence_index": 2
   }
  },
  "introduction": {
   "moves": [
    {
     "paragraph_index": 0,
     "move": "motivation"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 0,
     "move": "policy_or_broader_implication"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 1,
     "move": "contribution_statement"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 1,
     "move": "preview_of_approach"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 1,
     "move": "preview_of_results"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 2,
     "move": "preview_of_approach"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 3,
     "move": "mechanism_or_theory_sketch"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 4,
     "move": "identification_defense"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 5,
     "move": "preview_of_results"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 5,
     "move": "tension_or_puzzle"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 6,
     "move": "related_literature_positioning"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 7,
     "move": "related_literature_positioning"
    },
    {
     "paragraph_index": 8,
     "move": "related_literature_positioning"
    }
   ],
   "contribution_paragraph_index": 1,
   "contribution_types": [
    "new_evidence",
    "new_identification",
    "new_method",
    "new_theory_or_model"
   ],
   "roadmap_present": false,
   "literature_positioning_location": "inside_introduction"
  },
  "section_roles": [
   {
    "idx": 0,
    "role": "introduction"
   },
   {
    "idx": 1,
    "role": "data"
   },
   {
    "idx": 2,
    "role": "data"
   },
   {
    "idx": 3,
    "role": "theory"
   },
   {
    "idx": 4,
    "role": "results"
   },
   {
    "idx": 5,
    "role": "conclusion"
   },
   {
    "idx": 6,
    "role": "appendix"
   }
  ],
  "results_presentation": {
   "economic_significance_discussed": true,
   "statistical_significance_language": "confidence_intervals",
   "magnitude_statements_in_intro": false
  },
  "robustness": {
   "location": "mixed",
   "types": [
    "subsample",
    "alternative_measure",
    "other"
   ]
  },
  "tables": {
   "convention_notes": "Probit tables report marginal effects ×100. Second-stage estimates use nonlinear least squares on non-renewers with bootstrapped 95% CIs. Notes define renewal via lead-lender overlap, the crisis-exposure construction, and sample restrictions. Counterfactual lending is computed with the information gap set to zero.",
   "units_stated_in_notes": true,
   "standard_errors_description": "bootstrap"
  },
  "structural_summary": "The introduction motivates the work with relationship stickiness and its aggregate fragility, then states the main contribution: a first direct estimate of the information gap. It frames the key challenge of separating private from common information and sketches the comparison with renewers and a three-layer-information discrete-choice model. Identifying assumptions are stated, followed by a negative quantitative result contrasted with the prevailing view, and an alternative covenant channel is proposed. Related literature is discussed inside the introduction. The body moves from data and bank-shock measurement to the model and identification, then to two-stage estimation, aggregate counterfactuals, bias from naive models, policy, and generalizability. A short conclusion restates the method and finding.",
  "writing_profile_keywords": [
   "structural discrete choice",
   "adverse selection",
   "identification of private vs common information",
   "negative result",
   "bank shocks",
   "first-person singular",
   "quantification",
   "syndicated loans"
  ],
  "confidence": 0.8,
  "notes": "Single-authored. The main finding is a null/small-magnitude result. Robustness via subsamples (Table AIV), alternative bank shocks (Fig A2) and Monte Carlo (Fig A3) sits in the appendix. Section 2 heading appears to be a parsing fragment of Section I.",
  "figures": {
   "uncertainty_shown": "unclear"
  },
  "conclusion": {
   "bounded_claims": true,
   "policy_implications": false,
   "open_questions": false,
   "restates_contribution": true
  },
  "hedging": {
   "level": "moderate",
   "typical_devices": [
    "'appears to be' qualifiers on the main finding",
    "'unlikely to explain'",
    "explicit statement of maintained assumptions",
    "'a likely friction' for alternative mechanisms",
    "confining the conclusion to the syndicated loan market"
   ]
  },
  "claim_evidence": [
   {
    "claim": "Lending relationships in the syndicated market are very sticky; few firms form new relationships relative to renewals",
    "evidence_type": "descriptive_statistic",
    "evidence_ref": "Table I"
   },
   {
    "claim": "Lender crisis exposure lowers renewal probability with the existing lender",
    "evidence_type": "table",
    "evidence_ref": "Table II"
   },
   {
    "claim": "Estimated information gap is small",
    "evidence_type": "table",
    "evidence_ref": "Table III"
   },
   {
    "claim": "Information gap explains little of the aggregate post-crisis lending decline",
    "evidence_type": "table",
    "evidence_ref": "Table IV"
   },
   {
    "claim": "Naive models ignoring common information greatly overstate the friction's effect",
    "evidence_type": "table",
    "evidence_ref": "Table V"
   },
   {
    "claim": "Reduced-form patterns consistent with the inference hypothesis are mostly driven by common information",
    "evidence_type": "table",
    "evidence_ref": "Table AIII; Figure 6"
   },
   {
    "claim": "Bank shocks matter for firm borrowing in this market",
    "evidence_type": "prior_literature",
    "evidence_ref": "Chodorow-Reich (2014)"
   }
  ]
 },
 "deterministic_checks": {
  "roadmap_regex": false,
  "contribution_regex_in_intro": true,
  "magnitude_in_abstract": false,
  "abstract_n_sentences": 5,
  "intro_n_paragraphs": 9,
  "intro_n_words": 1297,
  "causal_words_in_abstract": 0,
  "hedge_words_in_abstract": 1,
  "stars_mentioned": false,
  "clustered_se_mentioned": false,
  "internet_appendix_mentioned": true,
  "section_roles_rule": {
   "0": "introduction",
   "1": "other",
   "2": "other",
   "3": "other",
   "4": "empirical_design",
   "5": "conclusion",
   "6": "appendix"
  }
 },
 "schema_valid": true,
 "code_version": "87c73cd-dirty"
}