{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:46+00:00", "task": "draft_introduction", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 2, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "D_profiles_retrieval", "L": "C_conventional_rag", "M": "B_strong_prompt", "N": "A_baseline", "P": "E_full_engine"}, "scores": {"D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Fluent and well-organized, with explicit citations placed in the text. It overstates the tsunami as 'plausibly exogenous' and 'high-frequency', and says 'February 2010', which the source does not give for the start. It also cites Collin-Dufresne et al. for the credit factors and Froot, Gabaix and others for prior empirical work, claims the source does not support."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Clear identification logic: it explains that the identifying variation is losses on unrelated books, and that variation is compared with industry peers. Uses todo markers for citations, which is honest. Mostly faithful; the 'wealth-effect' link to Kyle and Xiong and the claim that the tsunami is plausibly exogenous are slight embellishments. The text is cut off in the related literature."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Strong identification narrative and an explicit contribution statement with three strands. Citations are flagged as todos. Minor additions: 'February 2010', 'convertible bond arbitrage' as a setting for Mitchell et al., and attributing the empirical work to settings the source does not describe. The text is truncated."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Ties to tables and figures and uses source numbers correctly (1,087 counterparties, 0.979, $85.6bn). The placebo test description ('assign shocks from non-sellers') is speculative. The $85.6bn comparison is slightly misframed. The text is truncated before the contribution section."}, "E_full_engine": {"clearly": 0, "clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Best treatment of the estimand and identifying assumption, with caveats (variance shares, weekly horizon, buyer interpretation). Leaves an honest todo for findings not in the source. Cites Brownlees and Engle as existing tests, which the source does not support. Truncated before contribution and hedging details."}}, "best": "E_full_engine", "notes": "All outputs are truncated. P and M are the strongest on rigor and fidelity; K has the most fluent text but more unsupported claims.", "cost_usd": 0.060484, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:47+00:00", "task": "draft_introduction", "doc": "wp29", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "B_strong_prompt", "L": "A_baseline", "M": "D_profiles_retrieval", "N": "E_full_engine", "P": "C_conventional_rag"}, "scores": {"B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Clean and well-ordered, but it adds details beyond the source: the 'unfounded novelty' paraphrase, and the claim that oracle reference kept the negative hours (plausible, though not in the abstract)."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "Heavy nested bullets are unsuited to an introduction, and it inserts the 'roughly three points to six' interval reading, the ding2026verificationgap claim, and the 'checking the checker' attribution, none of which the source supports."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 3, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 8, "justification": "Rich in detail, but it invents or presupposes macros (\\dDAp, \\costRatioB, \\nReviewsRevise, \\nMainNonSuccess), adds specifics such as 1,200 rows and F1-conf-01, and the output is truncated at the end."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "Strongest on estimand, scope and ceiling-effect caveats, but it adds a ceiling claim, a '1,200 rows'-style detail, an interval reading, and the claim that the regex false positive was the only arm-specific violation."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 7, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "Concise and cleanly argued, but it uses undefined cost-ratio macros and adds the '1,200 rows' and 'twelve/eleven sessions' details."}}, "best": "E_full_engine", "notes": "All outputs reuse the withheld-intro-like content. Fidelity differences stem mostly from added specifics and undefined macros. N engages rigor best (estimand, scope, limited headroom) and also adds a few unsupported specifics.", "cost_usd": 0.053632, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:47+00:00", "task": "draft_introduction", "doc": "jof_12439", "rep": 2, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "C_conventional_rag", "L": "D_profiles_retrieval", "M": "E_full_engine", "N": "A_baseline", "P": "B_strong_prompt"}, "scores": {"C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "Well-organized and faithful on core numbers, but it invents some details (the Internet Appendix model, 'two ways' to measure exclusivity, perishable products framed as quality assessed in 30 days) and its Treated definition via both thresholds is slightly loose."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 5, "justification": "Strong motivation-to-approach flow and a clear contribution, but it includes a stray LaTeX artifact ('\\citet-style'), the unsupported claim that small suppliers 'did not gain on price', explanations about perishability and durability not in the source, and a model claim."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Engages identification threats and limits best (relative estimates, parallel trends, exposure assumptions) and sticks to the source, but the many todo CITATION markers and the missing explicit contribution section reduce its adoptability."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Faithful, clear and reads like a real introduction with a good mechanism discussion; it includes a few embellishments (e.g., 'relationship-specific investments', a claim about robustness) and is truncated in the contribution section."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 7, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 7, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 7, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Cleanest structure, with motivation, setting, strategy, findings, mechanism and a three-part contribution tied to the references. It slips slightly on 'exogenously' and in framing Treated as the 'below both thresholds' rule."}}, "best": "B_strong_prompt", "notes": "All outputs are truncated at the end. Numbers (63%, 90→30 days, 11%, 734/342/392, UF cutoffs) are consistent across them. P is the most adoptable; M is the most rigorous but leaves citation placeholders.", "cost_usd": 0.058634, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:48+00:00", "task": "explain_specification", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "D_profiles_retrieval", "L": "E_no_referee", "M": "E_no_profile", "N": "A_baseline", "P": "E_no_factcheck", "Q": "E_full_engine", "R": "C_conventional_rag", "S": "B_strong_prompt", "T": "E_no_retrieval"}, "scores": {"D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Complete and well organized, with a clear estimand, a flagged lagged-DV issue and correct fixed effects, but it asserts that Nickell/Arellano-Bond are the remedy, mislabels Table III as having variants, and attributes the 12%/18% shares loosely."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "Strong design explanation covering estimand, FE, assumptions and inference with TODOs, but it adds an invented 'predetermined composition' assumption and a claim that Figures 2 and 3 plot -ζ, and says the data show 'long time dimension'."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Detailed and careful about the estimand and the threats, but it is truncated mid-sentence and has no inference section, and it adds a redundancy TODO."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Complete and clear, but it claims that the X_t variants are used to compare explanatory power and that the tsunami exposure is 'plausibly unrelated', neither of which is in the source."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Thoughtful on limits and persistence, but it is truncated at the end, it lacks an inference section, and the lagged-timing remark is speculative."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Good on the estimand and the FE limits, but it is truncated before inference and it makes unsourced claims such as 'equilibrium outcome'."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Complete and coherent, with Nickell and Arellano-Bond cited and clustering flagged, but it states that Nickell's bias declines with T and that Table III comparison columns show survival of explanatory power, both interpretive additions."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Complete and well structured, but it asserts that the segmentation interpretation predicts effects concentrated at short horizons and that the tsunami regression is a probe of the assumption, and it has a thinner treatment of threats."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Most rigorous on limits, threats and TODOs, but it is truncated at the end and adds claims such as 'bias expected to be small'."}}, "best": "D_profiles_retrieval", "notes": "Several outputs (M, P, Q, T) are cut off mid-sentence, which lowers usefulness. K, L, N, R and S are complete. K and L stay closest to the source while flagging the missing items.", "cost_usd": 0.088607, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:48+00:00", "task": "flag_causal_claims", "doc": "jof_12439", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "E_no_retrieval", "L": "E_full_engine", "M": "E_no_profile", "N": "E_no_referee", "P": "D_profiles_retrieval", "Q": "C_conventional_rag", "R": "E_no_factcheck", "S": "B_strong_prompt", "T": "A_baseline"}, "scores": {"E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Strong caveats section and well-bounded rewordings, but it is truncated mid-Section II, and it adds \\todo placeholders and a few shaky inferences (Figure 2 pre-period reading, 'Section III reports' retailer shifts procurement)."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Careful SUTVA and intention-to-treat discussion with accurate details, but it is truncated in Section II and covers fewer sections."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Very rigorous (short pre-period, wide window versus 'just below and above', spillovers, 11% unit ambiguity) and covers more sections, but it is truncated in Section IV."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Accurate and concise, but truncated early in Section I and thinner on methodological caveats such as spillovers and the narrow window."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Covers Sections I–V with good catches (MM implication needing an exclusion argument, first-stage need, intent wording), with only a minor truncation at the end."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Good flagging of the 'just below and above' overstatement and the spillover concern, but truncated in Section II."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Excellent design taxonomy and recurring-issue discussion (including the assignment-timing point), but it is long, truncated in Section II, and its claim that the Agreement was 'signed in December' is a slight stretch."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Clear design key and the first-stage point, but truncated in Section II and covers fewer later sections."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Broadest coverage (including the Figure 2 caption, Sections III–V) with accurate bounded rewordings, truncated only at the very end."}}, "best": "D_profiles_retrieval", "notes": "All outputs are truncated; P, T and M gave the most complete and accurate coverage. Rankings weigh coverage and fidelity as well as rigor.", "cost_usd": 0.084127, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:48+00:00", "task": "draft_introduction", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "C_conventional_rag", "L": "B_strong_prompt", "M": "E_no_profile", "N": "E_no_factcheck", "P": "A_baseline", "Q": "E_full_engine", "R": "E_no_retrieval", "S": "D_profiles_retrieval", "T": "E_no_referee"}, "scores": {"C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Well structured and bounded, but it makes claims beyond the source (the tsunami result direction, 'robust to alternative constructions', 'February 2010', and a placebo description), and it has no explicit contribution paragraph before it truncates."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "Has an explicit contributions paragraph and flags citations with todos, but it asserts unsupported characterizations of prior work (reliance on aggregate proxies, MBS and reinsurance episodes) and the tsunami and ‘Table IV’ claims go slightly beyond the source."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 3, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Faithful and clean, but it is very short and truncates early, so there are no findings and no contribution."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "The strongest on identification: it states the identifying assumption, the threats, the causal limit of the variance share, and a dynamic-panel todo. Contribution positioning is weak, it is bullet-heavy for an introduction, and it truncates."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 7, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Polished narrative with a motivated gap and a contribution section, but it adds invented characterizations ('broker-dealer leverage', 'week after the event'), and Placebo is described speculatively."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 3, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Good framing and faithful, but it truncates before any results or contribution."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Candid about what the design can and cannot establish, with bounded claims and cautious hedging language. It has no explicit contribution paragraph and truncates."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Reasonable logic, but there are markdown lists, awkward todo citations inside sentences, a meta reference to 'the abstract's conclusion', and invented claims ('large and economically important', 'subsequently rises')."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 5, "justification": "Rich and well argued, but it asserts unsupported specifics (a plausibly exogenous tsunami loss, 'Table V' for spillovers, the claim that the effect is a short-horizon phenomenon, an exact date range) and uses markdown."}}, "best": "E_no_factcheck", "notes": "N and R best combine fidelity with methodological engagement; P and L are the most complete but add some unsupported claims.", "cost_usd": 0.079865, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:49+00:00", "task": "explain_specification", "doc": "jof_12439", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "E_no_factcheck", "L": "E_full_engine", "M": "E_no_retrieval", "N": "E_no_profile", "P": "E_no_referee", "Q": "A_baseline", "R": "C_conventional_rag", "S": "B_strong_prompt", "T": "D_profiles_retrieval"}, "scores": {"E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Clear and rigorous on estimand, fixed effects and threats, with sensible todo flags, but it truncates and has no inference section; it also presents the 2008 competitor agreement as a threat and adds ITT-style interpretation."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Thorough on estimand and assumptions, but it adds unsupported claims (an ITT label, a preperiod limited to 2006 and 'limited power', and a claim that β overstates the decline) and is cut off before inference."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Well structured with explicit estimands for each specification, but it adds a 'dose-response' framing and cites 'three levels' that the source does not state, and it is truncated with no inference section."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Careful and well organised, noting limits such as the linear probability model and estimand specificity, but it adds a linear-probability-model remark and a claim about the competitor, and it is truncated with no inference section."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Concise and faithful, but its intro promises an inference procedure that is never delivered and it adds a claim about the estimand window; it is also truncated."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Faithful and complete across the specifications, and it flags inference with a todo, but it adds a claim about 'FNE size criteria' and treats the heterogeneity tests as testing a quality view."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Gives a good inference todo and a clear structure, but it asserts that the estimand 'reduces trade by 11%' and adds speculative suggestions of clustering levels."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Clear estimand-first structure, but it includes the 11% finding and a price-lowering result that is not in the source, and it asserts within-product substitution confounds β."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 7, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "The most complete of the set: it covers every specification and ends with an inference todo, and it is faithful, with only minor additions such as the 'median within treatment group' phrasing."}}, "best": "D_profiles_retrieval", "notes": "All outputs are truncated. T and Q cover the most ground and explicitly flag the missing inference detail. Several others add unsupported claims such as ITT labels, a dose-response framing, or results not in the source.", "cost_usd": 0.091624, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:49+00:00", "task": "draft_introduction", "doc": "jof_12439", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "A_baseline", "L": "E_no_profile", "M": "E_no_retrieval", "N": "C_conventional_rag", "P": "B_strong_prompt", "Q": "E_no_factcheck", "R": "E_full_engine", "S": "D_profiles_retrieval", "T": "E_no_referee"}, "scores": {"A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Well-organized and faithful on the core numbers, but it invents a 'simple model in the spirit of Kim and Shin' in the Internet Appendix and the reasoning that nonperishable goods have quality that takes longer than 30 days to assess, and it describes the aggregate trends as showing 'no differential shocks' without support."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "It engages the estimand, the parallel-trends assumption, the local nature of the estimates and the spillover concern, and it flags unverified items with todo notes; it is faithful but truncated, and it claims the estimate is robust under Table III."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Faithful but truncated early, before results and contribution; it relies on a bullet structure and gives the bargaining-power and contracting views as 'puzzle' items that are loosely framed."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Strong structure with a specific contribution paragraph, but it asserts a simple model in the Internet Appendix, 'administrative data on firm revenues', and a predicted-effects claim not in the source."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "It uses todo citation placeholders instead of inline citations even though the references were provided, which reduces usability; otherwise it is faithful and has a clear contribution section, though it asserts a model in the Internet Appendix."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Careful on threats to identification and caveats, and faithful to the source; it is truncated before the contribution section, which weakens positioning."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 7, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "It has a compelling opening that connects financial contracting to organizational form, it ties results to tables and figures, and it reads the estimand carefully; it is truncated before the contribution section."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "It reads well, but it adds 'proprietary' data and a tax-authority source, claims that firms just above and below were 'otherwise similar', adds a causal-evidence claim, and invents the parenthetical definitions of low outside option (sales concentration and product market share), some of which are plausible but not in the source."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "Fluent and structured, but it overclaims that the specification 'rules out' firm trends, invents model predictions about 30 days and financing, asserts similar numbers of products, and is truncated before the contribution section."}}, "best": "E_no_profile", "notes": "L and R are the strongest on rigor and fidelity; L's todo flags make it the most honestly usable. Several outputs invent details about the Internet Appendix model or the exclusivity definitions.", "cost_usd": 0.08285, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:52+00:00", "task": "improve_abstract", "doc": "jof_12439", "rep": 2, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "A_baseline", "L": "B_strong_prompt", "M": "C_conventional_rag", "N": "D_profiles_retrieval", "P": "E_full_engine"}, "scores": {"A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Faithful and adds the incentive-mechanism finding from the source, but the claim that 'relationships in which termination is more costly are less affected' is a modest paraphrase, and the closing sentence 'therefore shapes boundaries' slightly overreaches."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 7, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Accurate and tight with a sharper question, but it adds little beyond the original and the closing sentence merely restates the first."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 7, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Clean, faithful, with a sharp question and a 30 vs 90 day framing; the contribution is only implicit and no new mechanism is added."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 7, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Faithful, with an explicit link to the theory of the firm, though the contribution claim is generic."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Adds identification detail (predetermined 2006 revenues, comparison within product) and the mechanism and exclusivity findings from the source; slightly beyond the original claims and likely just over 150 words."}}, "best": "E_full_engine", "notes": "P engages design most; K and P add source-supported findings beyond the original abstract, which may stretch the 'don't alter claims' constraint. P may exceed the 150-word limit.", "cost_usd": 0.029368, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:54+00:00", "task": "improve_abstract", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 2, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "E_full_engine", "L": "D_profiles_retrieval", "M": "A_baseline", "N": "C_conventional_rag", "P": "B_strong_prompt"}, "scores": {"E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Sharp opening question and adds the industry-exclusion detail supported by the tables; the 'does capital flow in quickly enough' framing is fine, but the contribution is only implicit."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "States the contribution explicitly (portfolio-level vs institution-level capital), but the 'direct evidence... not only at the institution level' claim is an interpretive addition that slightly overreaches the source."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Motivates the question via the neoclassical assumption, which is faithful to the source, and keeps the numbers exact; the contribution is still not explicitly differentiated."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Has the best question → data → measure → result flow and includes the industry-exclusion detail, but it likely exceeds 150 words and carries LaTeX abstract wrappers."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Concise question, contrasts seller-level with whole-institution measures, and keeps the numbers exact; 'specialized intermediaries' and 'identify counterparties' are mild paraphrase."}}, "best": "A_baseline", "notes": "All outputs preserve 12% and 18%. N is likely over the word limit. L adds an interpretive claim not in the source.", "cost_usd": 0.030992, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:54+00:00", "task": "improve_abstract", "doc": "wp29", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "E_full_engine", "L": "A_baseline", "M": "B_strong_prompt", "N": "D_profiles_retrieval", "P": "C_conventional_rag"}, "scores": {"E_full_engine": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Clear and well structured, but it uses an itemize list inside an abstract, calls the runs 'preregistered' (the source says frozen with hashes), and adds 'completion was already high' and 'no correctness gain is detected', which go beyond the source; 'gated arms reached full compliance' is a slight misstatement."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Faithful, concise and logically ordered. It keeps the corrected-rubric result and the client version, and drops only minor details such as the review loop never being triggered. The contribution is only implicit."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Reads well and states the contribution explicitly, but the 'first controlled test, to our knowledge' claim is an unsupported novelty claim. It also omits the corrected-rubric result, the model name and the bootstrap detail."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Very faithful: it keeps the client and model, the six families, the bootstrap interval, hidden oracles and the freeze. The question is sharp, but the abstract drops the corrected-rubric note and states the contribution only implicitly."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Compact and clear, but it calls the experiment 'preregistered' (the source says frozen with hashes) and omits the bootstrap detail and the mechanism contrasts, giving less methodological detail."}}, "best": "D_profiles_retrieval", "notes": "The magnitudes are macros in every output, so they match. Differences come from added claims: 'preregistered', the 'first test' claim, and the extras in K.", "cost_usd": 0.029856, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:55+00:00", "task": "improve_abstract", "doc": "jof_12439", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "E_no_profile", "L": "E_no_retrieval", "M": "B_strong_prompt", "N": "D_profiles_retrieval", "P": "C_conventional_rag", "Q": "E_no_referee", "R": "E_full_engine", "S": "A_baseline", "T": "E_no_factcheck"}, "scores": {"E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Faithful and clear; the exclusivity result and the incentive-mechanism claim come from the source, but 'suppliers classified by predetermined revenues' is a light paraphrase and the word count is probably near the upper limit."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Accurate and tight; it names 2006 predetermined revenues and the exclusivity result, though 'regulatory size criteria' is slightly loose."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 7, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Very clear, but 'relational contracts mitigate these effects' and 'the evidence shows' state the claims more strongly than the source does, and it omits the incentive channel."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Faithful and has a good question and contribution, but it includes the \\begin{abstract} wrapper and does not give the exclusivity evidence for the relational-contract claim."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Accurate and carefully hedged with 'can mitigate'; the claim of an effect on the boundary of the firm is slightly interpretive and the design detail is thin."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "The January 2007 start date is in the source; the abstract is accurate and includes the incentive-mechanism interpretation, though the exclusivity mechanism is not shown."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Precise on design and the exclusivity evidence; the contribution statement is somewhat generic, but it is faithful."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Stays close to the original, but it retains the vague 'Finally, we find' and the last sentence is redundant; there is less sharpening."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Explains the agreement with the competition agency, the predetermined classification and the exclusivity evidence, all faithful to the source; it is a little long."}}, "best": "E_no_factcheck", "notes": "All outputs are largely faithful. The differences are in design detail, hedging on the relational-contract claim, and whether exclusivity evidence is cited. Word counts were not verified.", "cost_usd": 0.037118, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:55+00:00", "task": "flag_causal_claims", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "A_baseline", "L": "B_strong_prompt", "M": "E_full_engine", "N": "D_profiles_retrieval", "P": "E_no_referee", "Q": "E_no_retrieval", "R": "C_conventional_rag", "S": "E_no_factcheck", "T": "E_no_profile"}, "scores": {"A_baseline": {"clarity": 1, "argument_logic": 1, "contribution_positioning": 1, "methodological_rigor": 1, "fidelity": 1, "usefulness": 1, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Output is empty."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Well-structured and bounded rewordings, but it is truncated and asserts a few unverified details, such as Table VI showing that sellers reduce positions."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "The framing of design elements D1-D8 and the matching-threat discussion are the most rigorous, and it is careful about what is not visible, but it is truncated and carries heavy preamble."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Gives a clean itemized list and accurate figures, with good flagging of the logic problem and the $85.6B figure predating the sample, but it is truncated."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Concise and accurate, with good classification of the mechanism and hedging claims, but it is truncated and slightly less deep on threats."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Strong engagement with the maintained assumption, covers conclusion claims, and uses honest todo flags for missing table content, but it is truncated and has a LaTeX typo."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Clear numbered claims with accurate quotes and sensible rewordings, but it is truncated and moderately deep."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Explicit about what the design does and does not rule out, and extends to the Data section's EDF assumption, but it is truncated."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Opens with a clear maintained-assumption item and uses Table AI accurately, though it is truncated."}}, "best": "E_no_retrieval", "notes": "All outputs except K are truncated. Q, M, S and T are strongest on methodological rigor. Q is best overall for its todo flags and its coverage of the Conclusion.", "cost_usd": 0.079372, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:57+00:00", "task": "improve_abstract", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "E_full_engine", "L": "E_no_profile", "M": "A_baseline", "N": "E_no_retrieval", "P": "E_no_referee", "Q": "E_no_factcheck", "R": "B_strong_prompt", "S": "D_profiles_retrieval", "T": "C_conventional_rag"}, "scores": {"E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Sharp question with a faithful 12%/18%. The 'effectively cover the entire CDS market' and industry-exclusion details come from the source, and the portfolio-level takeaway is a mild but fair inference."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "It adds the industry exclusion and the controls and fixed effects as identification design, all drawn from the table notes. It lacks an explicit contribution statement and includes an abstract environment wrapper."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "It frames the question around the neoclassical assumption and states the contribution explicitly. It says little about design, and the 'capital flows freely' wording is derived from the truncated abstract."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "The 2010–2016 sample and the controls are accurate. Saying the shocks carry information 'conditional on controls and fixed effects' slightly extends the claim, since the independence is stated relative to institution-wide measures."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 3, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Clean and faithful, with a sharper question, but it adds no explicit contribution and no design detail."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Its question, 'beyond what changes in fundamental risk imply', slightly reframes the claim. The industry exclusion is included and the contribution is stated at the end."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 3, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Faithful and clear, but the paragraph breaks are unusual for an abstract and there is no explicit contribution."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "It has a clear question and a contribution sentence, and the numbers are accurate. Design detail is thin."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "It frames the question around the neoclassical assumption, which is faithful to the truncated abstract. The contribution is implicit, and design detail is minimal."}}, "best": "A_baseline", "notes": "All outputs preserve 12% and 18%. Differences lie in how explicitly the contribution is stated and how much design detail from the source is included. M and L are the strongest, for different reasons.", "cost_usd": 0.038324, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:58+00:00", "task": "improve_table", "doc": "jof_12439", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "E_full_engine", "L": "D_profiles_retrieval", "M": "E_no_factcheck", "N": "C_conventional_rag", "P": "A_baseline", "Q": "E_no_referee", "R": "E_no_retrieval", "S": "B_strong_prompt", "T": "E_no_profile"}, "scores": {"E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Very thorough on identification and interpretation, but it invents a \"Price\" outcome, a Table II reference to the Figure 2 pretrend and Table III, and a \"Products sold by only one group contribute no variation\" claim not shown for Table II; placeholders are handled honestly."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Concise and faithful on the sample and treatment definitions, but it assumes a Price outcome and offers little on identification threats or interpretation; the Post definition is slightly vague."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Well organized and faithful, flags outcomes as to-be-confirmed, and states the relative-effect caveat and the identification assumption; the Price outcome is only hedged in the placeholder."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Clear variable list, but it imports the 734-firm count from Table I (a different sample, not Table II), assumes a Price outcome, and has thin identification discussion."}, "A_baseline": {"clear": 5, "clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Compact and mostly faithful, but it omits the Control definition and asserts a price outcome; identification discussion is minimal."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Faithful and clear, avoids asserting the price outcome, and explains the fixed effects, but it omits an explicit Control definition and parallel-trends discussion."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Strong on identification and the relative-effect caveat with a more informative caption, but it asserts a Price outcome and the Table III and Figure 2 references for Table II, which the source does not establish."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Faithful, but it imports the 734/342/392 counts from Table I and has limited identification discussion."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Thorough with good interpretation and honest placeholders; it assumes a Price outcome and restricts the sample to products with both groups without source support."}}, "best": "E_no_factcheck", "notes": "Table II's notes in the source are truncated, so the Price outcome and the Table I counts are unverified for Table II. Outputs that did not import these ranked higher on fidelity.", "cost_usd": 0.056586, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:45:59+00:00", "task": "improve_table", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "A_baseline", "L": "E_no_referee", "M": "E_full_engine", "N": "E_no_retrieval", "P": "E_no_profile", "Q": "E_no_factcheck", "R": "B_strong_prompt", "S": "C_conventional_rag", "T": "D_profiles_retrieval"}, "scores": {"A_baseline": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Mostly faithful, but it omits the label, says the caption is kept, and adds unsupported details such as 'percentage points' for log-changes and the index-equivalent claim; its todos are honest."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Clean and usable. It asserts a significance convention and that the table reports observations and R2, hedged with todos, and it invents the label tab:III, flagged."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Very careful about flagging unverifiable items and adds an interpretation of the coefficients, but it is cluttered with todos and its interpretation rationale is partly speculative."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Strongest on identification: it states the exclusion restriction and its limits. However, it asserts the margin payment equivalence and the Figure 2 persistence link, and it omits the label."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Well structured and cautious, with VERIFY flags on every uncertain item and a sensible interpretation paragraph, though somewhat long."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Compact and well organised, but it asserts that a negative zeta_s means losses are associated with wider spreads, which is an unverified sign claim, and cites Section II.B.1."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Clear layout, but it asserts a sign interpretation of the coefficient and says Markit defines industries, and it keeps its todos in the notes."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Concise, but it states the Feb 2010–Oct 2016 window as fact for this table and asserts the significance convention, both borrowed from Table AI."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Faithful and well flagged, with a warning not to assume the Table AI clustering and a request for N, but it omits the label."}}, "best": "E_no_profile", "notes": "Outputs differ mainly in how much they borrow from Table AI or assert beyond the source, and in whether they add identification text. P, T and N were the strongest.", "cost_usd": 0.057802, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:00+00:00", "task": "interpret_results", "doc": "jof_12439", "rep": 2, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "B_strong_prompt", "L": "A_baseline", "M": "D_profiles_retrieval", "N": "E_full_engine", "P": "C_conventional_rag"}, "scores": {"B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Well organized, but it asserts that price cuts did not restore trade, speaks of an intention-to-treat reading, and builds the incentive logic on unsupported claims; it also leaves many TODOs and is truncated."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Mostly faithful and honest, with TODOs flagging missing coefficients and no interpretation of the profit result; it does assert a factoring interpretation and 'price-discriminate' without support, and it is truncated."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "Fluent and complete, but it adds interpretive claims such as 'prices partly compensate' and 'economically meaningful', which are partly unsupported, and it states Table III results as established."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Engages the estimand, spillovers, selection of prices on survivors, and non-random exclusivity, and it flags missing details with TODOs; it misattributes the Table I treatment definition and is truncated."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "Readable and complete, but it makes unsupported claims such as the Superstore preferring the contract, 'did not simply shift surplus', and the Table III result, and it says Table IV profits 'help assess' without any direction."}}, "best": "E_full_engine", "notes": "N gives the most careful treatment of what the estimates can support and is the least inventive. L is second. All outputs are truncated.", "cost_usd": 0.056734, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:02+00:00", "task": "interpret_results", "doc": "jof_12439", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "A_baseline", "L": "C_conventional_rag", "M": "E_no_profile", "N": "D_profiles_retrieval", "P": "E_full_engine", "Q": "E_no_referee", "R": "B_strong_prompt", "S": "E_no_factcheck", "T": "E_no_retrieval"}, "scores": {"A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Complete and well organised, with sensible TODOs for the unreported coefficients; it states that Table III shows the effect survives, and it adds a claim that perishables' quality can be verified within 30 days, which is not in the source."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Strong mechanism discussion and many TODOs for missing coefficients; it adds an unsupported claim that prices are worse for suppliers and that the Table II price drop rules out a surplus-transfer reading, and it is truncated at the end."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Engages intent-to-treat, relative effects, pretrend limits, and the Figure 1 limits; it cites Panel B as addressing size trends, which is not in the source, and it is truncated."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Well organised with TODOs for missing numbers; it asserts that Figure 1 shows no diverging paths and that price adjustment does not undo the restriction, which go beyond the source, and it is truncated."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Very careful about what each estimate does and does not establish and avoids claiming Table III results; its Table II clustering note is only a prompt, and it is truncated."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 3, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Fluent, but it claims that Table III is consistent with Table II and that the Superstore withdrew from a substantial share of relationships, and it makes statements about profits and the cost to the buyer without support, so it is the least faithful."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Concise and logical, with TODOs for Table III and profits and a caveat that the incentive mechanism is not directly tested; it asserts that the buyer chose not to renegotiate price only, which is an overreach."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Emphasises relative effects, contamination of the Control group, and limits on welfare claims; its enforcement and regulator-motivation remarks are loosely supported, and it is truncated."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Explicit that it only reports what the tables' notes support, with intent-to-treat and relative-effect caveats and many author flags; it contains a minor wrong claim that the relative estimate would exceed the absolute decline, and it is truncated."}}, "best": "E_no_retrieval", "notes": "Outputs M, P, S and T were the most methodologically careful and the most faithful to the source. Q was the least faithful because it asserts unreported results; Q and some others contain truncated or unsupported statements.", "cost_usd": 0.086356, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:03+00:00", "task": "interpret_results", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 2, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "E_full_engine", "L": "A_baseline", "M": "B_strong_prompt", "N": "C_conventional_rag", "P": "D_profiles_retrieval"}, "scores": {"E_full_engine": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "It engages identification threats and flags missing numbers with todos, and the Table AI numbers are accurate, but it is truncated mid-sentence, contains the odd claim that 12% is the share \"accounted for\" with no decomposition, and says Table III controls include 'common controls' and Table IV fixed effects loosely."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Well structured and accurate on 12%/18% and Table AI, but it calls Table AI's groups 'top sellers/top buyers' and asserts concentration, and the reading of Table V as 'suggestive' adds some inference; it is also truncated."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Clear and bounded with a good summary, but it asserts that 'the effect is concentrated in the short run' and that capital eventually arrives, which Figure 2 does not support in the supplied material, and it has no todos for the missing Table III estimates."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 3, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "It states that losses are associated with higher spreads, that the top five sellers hold 'a large share', that the results survive alternative constructions, and that industry-by-time fixed effects absorb systematic factors, none of which the material gives; it is also truncated."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Complete with honest todos and a neat Table AI summary, but it states that 12/18 is 'roughly two-thirds' (a derived figure) and labels 'top net sellers' and 'handful of counterparties' without support, though it does not truncate."}}, "best": "D_profiles_retrieval", "notes": "All outputs correctly avoid inventing coefficients. K, L and N are cut off mid-sentence. P is complete, uses todos appropriately, and its inventions are minor.", "cost_usd": 0.059536, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:05+00:00", "task": "referee_report", "doc": "jof_12439", "rep": 2, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "B_strong_prompt", "L": "A_baseline", "M": "D_profiles_retrieval", "N": "C_conventional_rag", "P": "E_full_engine"}, "scores": {"B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Faithful, well-organized report with concrete, section-tied requests (treatment definition, competitor timing, anticipation, exposure design), but truncated mid-comment and weaker on SUTVA and first stage."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Strong identification coverage including first stage, survival and placebos, and well tied to tables, though it is cut off and its claim that the pre-period is only 2006 is a partly speculative reading of Figure 2."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Raises the sharpest methodological points (SUTVA/spillovers, detrended Figure 2, wide control window, exit vs termination) with good literature positioning; truncated."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 7, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Best differentiated contribution and a clever logical link (Table IV reduced procurement implies not pure reallocation), plus first stage and circumvention; truncated."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Detailed and faithful summary, including a price result attributed to Section V, but it is truncated very early in the major comments, leaving little critique."}}, "best": "C_conventional_rag", "notes": "All outputs are truncated; ranking is based on the depth of critique delivered before the cutoff. None appear to invent numbers.", "cost_usd": 0.054346, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:05+00:00", "task": "referee_report", "doc": "jof_12439", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "E_no_referee", "L": "D_profiles_retrieval", "M": "E_no_factcheck", "N": "A_baseline", "P": "E_full_engine", "Q": "E_no_retrieval", "R": "C_conventional_rag", "S": "B_strong_prompt", "T": "E_no_profile"}, "scores": {"E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Concise, well-tied comments (treatment definition, bandwidth, pre-trends, competitor agreement), but truncated early at comment (e) and lacks inference/mechanism sections."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Strong positioning with literature citations from the reference list and good spillover and first-stage comments, but cut off at comment 6."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Rigorous on mean reversion, anticipation and regulatory-risk alternative, though truncated after comment 4 and with a minor LaTeX glitch."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Broad set of identification comments including crisis and placebo ideas, but truncated at comment 7 and never reaches inference or minor comments."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Well structured with SUTVA/interference, density tests and ITT framing; truncated at comment 6 though it promises comments 7-8 on mechanism."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Thorough identification section and good notes on Figure 1 composition issues; truncated mid-comment 6 before measurement/inference."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Sound comments including a nuanced link between Table IV and reallocation, but cut off at comment 4."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Covers the most dimensions including inference/clustering and SUTVA, and positions against Murfin-Njoroge and Barrot, though the 'factor of 24' and inventory-financing point are slightly inferential and it truncates in comment 5."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Detailed, but claims Section V says Table II shows lower prices paid to Treated firms, which is not supported by the source, and it truncates in comment 2(d)."}}, "best": "B_strong_prompt", "notes": "All outputs are truncated; S best combines inference, SUTVA, first stage, and literature positioning with no invented facts. T has a likely invented finding on prices.", "cost_usd": 0.084114, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:05+00:00", "task": "interpret_results", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "E_no_factcheck", "L": "E_no_referee", "M": "A_baseline", "N": "C_conventional_rag", "P": "E_full_engine", "Q": "E_no_retrieval", "R": "B_strong_prompt", "S": "D_profiles_retrieval", "T": "E_no_profile"}, "scores": {"E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Careful identification discussion with honest todos and accurate numbers; truncated at the end, and it adds some unsupported detail (e.g., Figure 2 'controls dated over the same horizon')."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Complete coverage with todos, but overclaims, e.g. 'strongly related', and says the effect is concentrated at shorter horizons, which goes beyond the material; the Table VII description is also a little speculative."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Faithful to the numbers, but it has fewer todos and little engagement with identification threats; it states that Table AI significance holds and says Section II.C argues the silo view, which is only partly supported."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Well structured with appropriate todos and a note on variance shares versus per-dollar impact; it claims 'losses followed by wider spreads' and 'strongly related' without support."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Strongest on rigor: it flags the sign convention, R² type, dynamic-panel bias and measurement error, with accurate numbers; the Nickell caveat is outside the material but cited from the reference list, and the text is truncated."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Good identification and caveat discussion, but it asserts a three-component spread decomposition in Section II.A and a link to Figure 1 concentration that the material does not support; truncated."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Fluent, but it asserts 'economically large' effects and 'roughly two-thirds', labels the Table AI groups 'top' sellers and buyers, and describes the tsunami design with confidence beyond the material."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "Detailed, but it claims the relation 'survives the option-based controls', that sellers should adjust quantities, and that prices recover as capital is redeployed, none of which is in the material; truncated."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Rigorous and bounded: it separates association from causation, discusses overlapping variance shares, and states hedging attenuation logic, with todos in place of numbers; truncated at the end."}}, "best": "E_no_profile", "notes": "Several outputs are cut off at the end. The strongest outputs (T, P, K) were careful about unreported estimates and used placeholders rather than inventing values. The weaker ones (R, S) asserted findings such as magnitude, survival of the option-based controls, and recovery patterns that the material does not state.", "cost_usd": 0.087316, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:07+00:00", "task": "referee_report", "doc": "wp29", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "D_profiles_retrieval", "L": "C_conventional_rag", "M": "E_full_engine", "N": "A_baseline", "P": "B_strong_prompt"}, "scores": {"D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Solid summary and ceiling argument, but truncated after the first major comment, and it claims an explicit disclosure that no human verified reference values, which is not in the source material."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Well-tied comments on the ceiling and on A-006 treatment delivery with concrete remedies, but it is cut off at comment 3.3 and the claim that non-successes were concentrated in four tasks is only an inference."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "It separates the initial-session and continuation effects of A-006 and notes that the gate and the compliance check are the same program, but it cites T1 gate failures and 'Your' from sections not shown and is truncated at comment 3."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Strong on the equivalence margin, power and the ceiling, and it recommends major revision, but it is truncated mid-comment 2 and relies on unverifiable details such as T1 and 'Your'."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 7, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Covers the most distinct points (mechanical compliance, asymmetric oracle audit, the F6-conf-04 reward of the wrong practice, auditability measures) and positions the work against cited prior studies, though it is truncated and uses some details not in the source."}}, "best": "B_strong_prompt", "notes": "All outputs are truncated, so none reaches minor comments or a recommendation. P gives the most incisive and differentiated major comments, including the asymmetric oracle audit and the mechanical compliance result. Fidelity differences are small across outputs.", "cost_usd": 0.058138, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:07+00:00", "task": "referee_report", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 2, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "D_profiles_retrieval", "L": "E_full_engine", "M": "C_conventional_rag", "N": "B_strong_prompt", "P": "A_baseline"}, "scores": {"D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Faithful and well-tied to sections and tables, with strong identification comments (index loadings, shift-share, tsunami), but it is truncated after the inference comment and omits measurement, minor comments and recommendation."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Careful identification, quote-construction and hedging critiques tied to sections, and it notes the Introduction is missing, but it is truncated mid-comment 3 with no recommendation or minor comments."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Covers identification, inference, dynamic-panel and measurement (12% vs 18% R2 definition) comments, each tied to tables, with concrete requests, though truncated at 3.6 without minor comments or a recommendation."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Positions the paper against cited literature from the reference list (Oehmke and Zawadowski, Mitchell et al.), and adds the reflection problem and index-constituent issues. It misspells Shachar as 'Shachar' in the source's 'Schachar' form and is truncated in comment 6."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Strong, well-organized identification comments, including synthetic-seller placebo, frozen weights and tsunami checks, and a plausible use of Table AI's 121 sellers; truncated at inference comment 5 with no measurement section or recommendation."}}, "best": "B_strong_prompt", "notes": "All five are truncated and faithful to the source. N and M are slightly better because they cover more of the required dimensions (measurement, dynamic-panel inference, 12% vs 18% definition) and, in N's case, contribution positioning.", "cost_usd": 0.06048, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:08+00:00", "task": "referee_report", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "D_profiles_retrieval", "L": "B_strong_prompt", "M": "A_baseline", "N": "E_full_engine", "P": "E_no_profile", "Q": "C_conventional_rag", "R": "E_no_retrieval", "S": "E_no_referee", "T": "E_no_factcheck"}, "scores": {"D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Strong, well-tied identification and inference comments, but it claims Tables III-V notes lack clustering and misattributes details (e.g., Table VII notation, 'Section III.C' use), and it is truncated mid-comment 5."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Rigorous on shift-share, Markit pricing, tsunami and clustering, and it uses Table AI numbers correctly, but it states ~350 weekly observations per firm (not in the source) and is truncated."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Candid scope caveat, accurate numbers, careful identification points (index exposure, timing of shares, falsification via EDF and equity); truncated before minor comments and recommendation."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Detailed and well-tied comments, including the catch that the abstract's margin payments differ from Table II's mark-to-market change, plus leave-one-seller-out and the Table VI fixed effects; truncated."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Covers identification, variance-share definition, magnitude translation and alternative channels (counterparty risk, collateral), each tied to sections, with accurate numbers; truncated."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Uses reference-list citations properly and positions the contribution well, with actionable identification and inference requests, but wrongly says Table AI clusters by firm and week and is truncated."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 7, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Most faithful and careful about what was unavailable, with good positioning and clear comments; but heavy use of TODO placeholders for citations that exist in the reference list, and truncated early."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Sharpest insight that SC is mechanically a holdings-weighted average of other names' spread changes, with creative remedies (random-holdings placebo, orthogonalization); a notation slip in the tsunami comment, a possibly misplaced citation to Chen-Joslin-Ni, and truncated."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Faithful, thorough summary with well-organized identification comments tied to sections, but truncated early, so inference, measurement and recommendation are missing."}}, "best": "E_no_referee", "notes": "All outputs are truncated, so none includes the recommendation or minor comments. Ranking rests mainly on the depth of identification critique and on fidelity.", "cost_usd": 0.090464, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:13+00:00", "task": "rewrite_literature", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "E_full_engine", "L": "E_no_retrieval", "M": "A_baseline", "N": "D_profiles_retrieval", "P": "B_strong_prompt", "Q": "E_no_factcheck", "R": "E_no_profile", "S": "E_no_referee", "T": "C_conventional_rag"}, "scores": {"E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "Well-organized and bounded, with a good treatment of identification and hedging, but it invents characterizations of several cited works, such as the 'Murfin' description and the Collin-Dufresne and Longstaff summaries, and it cites Boyarchenko both correctly and loosely."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 7, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 5, "justification": "Strong differentiation from prior work and honest limits, but it invents details about cited papers (Gabaix et al. on prepayment risk, Coval and Stafford on mutual funds, Mitchell et al. on slow recoveries) and about Brownlees and Engle."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 5, "justification": "Clear narrative, but it invents claims about the cited papers (broker-dealer leverage, primary dealer capital ratio, Gabaix as 'not systematic risk') and misspells Schachar as 'Shachar'. It also has a TODO footnote and less identification detail."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 6, "justification": "Contains stray LaTeX \\citep artifacts and an odd 'keys were not provided' sentence; it also invents details such as convertible bond arbitrage, index options quantities, and 'single business line'. Many bullet-list items remain laundry-list-like."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "Gives a clear question-to-contribution flow, but includes invented characterizations (broker-dealer leverage, primary dealer equity capital ratio), table references, and the 'comparable' share claim; the unlisted-bullet section is still list-like."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 7, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 7, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Most careful: bounded claims, explicit limits (no additive decomposition, hedging unobserved), and faithful use of Boyarchenko and the source. Few embellishments of cited works; Table references are plausible."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 7, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Explicit threats to identification, scope limits, and three clearly stated contributions, all faithful to the source; it only slightly embellishes theories and leaves a TODO footnote."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Readable and faithful in the core, but it relies on bullet lists of citations, includes a TODO, and makes only moderate contribution differentiation; it also lists Chen et al. as a specialized-participant study."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 6, "justification": "Long and bullet-heavy, with invented claims (convertible and merger arbitrage, Acharya as 'market's response to concentrated shocks', 'price discovery'), a TODO footnote, and an odd opening claim."}}, "best": "E_no_factcheck", "notes": "Q and R are the most faithful and methodologically careful. Several outputs embellished descriptions of cited papers beyond the source.", "cost_usd": 0.076296, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:13+00:00", "task": "improve_abstract", "doc": "wp29", "rep": 1, "pass": "B", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "C_conventional_rag", "L": "E_full_engine", "M": "B_strong_prompt", "N": "A_baseline", "P": "D_profiles_retrieval"}, "scores": {"C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Concise and clear, but \"preregistered\" is not in the source (it says frozen with hashes). It also omits the bootstrap type and drops the null mechanism contrasts."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Methodologically rich, with the null mechanism contrasts, review loop never triggered, and correction leaving the null unchanged. But \"preregistered\" is not in the source, the bullet list is unusual for an abstract, and \"completion already high\" is an inference. The gated arms' compliance is also slightly altered."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Contribution is explicit, but the unsupported \"to our knowledge, the first controlled test\" claim is an invented claim. It omits the model version and the bootstrap detail."}, "A_baseline": {"channel": "", "clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Faithful to the source, including client and model, the frozen design and the corrected-rubric statement. It is somewhat terse and does not state the contribution as explicitly."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 7, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 7, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Sharp opening question, faithful to the source, and includes the six families, the task-cluster bootstrap, the hidden oracles and the frozen design. It does not make an explicit novelty claim."}}, "best": "D_profiles_retrieval", "notes": "Outputs K and L add 'preregistered', which is not in the source. M adds an unsupported novelty claim. N and P are faithful, and P is the most complete while staying within 150 words.", "cost_usd": 0.029556, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:13+00:00", "task": "flag_causal_claims", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 1, "pass": "B", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "A_baseline", "L": "E_no_factcheck", "M": "E_no_retrieval", "N": "E_full_engine", "P": "E_no_profile", "Q": "C_conventional_rag", "R": "B_strong_prompt", "S": "E_no_referee", "T": "D_profiles_retrieval"}, "scores": {"A_baseline": {"clarity": 1, "argument_logic": 1, "contribution_positioning": 1, "methodological_rigor": 1, "fidelity": 1, "usefulness": 1, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Output is empty."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Careful and honest about missing material, but it is truncated and covers few Section III claims. It also asserts that placebo tests were not supplied, and the Table VI claim is cut off."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Rigorous, with explicit assumptions and todo flags, but it contains a LaTeX formatting error and is truncated midway through Section III."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Strong upfront design catalogue and identification threat, but the long preamble delays the claims and the output is truncated."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Good global assumption statement, and it uses Table AI numbers accurately, but it is truncated and its claim coverage is thin."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Covers many claims and spots the reversed logic, but it states the placebo test results as fact even though they are not in the source, and it is truncated."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Broad claim coverage with sound classifications and notes that the periods differ for the 85.6 billion figure, though it is truncated."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Compact and faithful, with good coverage of Section III, including the buyer-capital item, though it is truncated and one rewording tilts causal."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Broad coverage including buyer null and hedging plausibility, with sound bounded rewordings and useful notes; it is truncated at the end."}}, "best": "D_profiles_retrieval", "notes": "All outputs except K are truncated. Differences come mainly from coverage and small fidelity slips, so the scores are close.", "cost_usd": 0.079092, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:13+00:00", "task": "improve_abstract", "doc": "jof_12439", "rep": 1, "pass": "B", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "E_full_engine", "L": "A_baseline", "M": "E_no_profile", "N": "D_profiles_retrieval", "P": "C_conventional_rag", "Q": "B_strong_prompt", "R": "E_no_referee", "S": "E_no_retrieval", "T": "E_no_factcheck"}, "scores": {"E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Faithful and clear, with design details (predetermined 2006 revenues, cutoff) supported by the source. The exclusivity claim is supported by Table V, and 'just below and above' is fine."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 7, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Very faithful and explicit about the contribution, but says little about the design beyond the DiD label."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Good design description and the exclusivity result. The incentive-mechanism ending is supported by the source, though it adds a claim not in the original abstract."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "The incentive-mechanism claim is added beyond the original abstract. It includes LaTeX abstract wrappers, and 'Relational contracts mitigate' is stated more strongly than the source."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Clear and faithful. Its conclusion on the boundary of the firm is slightly strong but supported."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Clear, and the exclusivity mechanism is stated precisely. The claim that 'the restriction matters less' is supported by Table V."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Adds the January 2007 start date, which is in the source. The incentive-mechanism claim is added, and the contribution sentence comes late."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Covers the design, predetermined assignment, exclusivity and the incentive device, all supported by the source. 'Regulatory size criteria' is a bit loose, but overall it is the most complete."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Accurate, with the agency/agreement context and a clean design description. The contribution statement is modest."}}, "best": "E_no_retrieval", "notes": "All outputs keep the 11% and the 30/90-day figures. The differences lie in design detail and in how far each goes beyond the original claims. Word counts are roughly within range.", "cost_usd": 0.036618, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:14+00:00", "task": "rewrite_literature", "doc": "jof_12439", "rep": 1, "pass": "A", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "E_no_retrieval", "L": "D_profiles_retrieval", "M": "C_conventional_rag", "N": "E_no_factcheck", "P": "A_baseline", "Q": "E_full_engine", "R": "E_no_profile", "S": "E_no_referee", "T": "B_strong_prompt"}, "scores": {"E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "It engages identification and limits well, but it claims 'the Superstore lowers prices paid' and 'symmetric' mitigation as findings that the source does not clearly give, and the placeholder todo-citation format clutters the text."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "The structure is clear and the contributions are sharply differentiated, but it asserts that prior evidence is 'largely cross-sectional' and that mitigation is symmetric, and it says the Chilean industry shows the same pattern, none of which the source supports; it also pays little attention to identification."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "It positions the paper well against Baker and Hubbard (2004) and the cross-country work, but 'to our knowledge, first quasi-experimental evidence' and the 'verify quality before paying' mechanism are not in the source, and it has little on inference."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "It stays faithful, flags the parallel-trends assumptions and the relative-effect limitation, and bounds its claims; the 'symmetric' exclusivity claim is probably inferred, and the passage is long with several bullet lists."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "It is crisp and differentiated, but it invents the claim that 'prior work typically studies relational contracts and trade credit as coexisting', says the 'Superstore does not simply replace' suppliers, and attributes 90-day borrowing to the buyer. It also gives the incentive theories no citation in its three-way list."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "It has the best engagement with identification, scope and inference, with a candid caveat on exclusivity and a todo on Table IV, but it asserts a symmetry finding, includes the UF window numbers, and gives a collateral-based intermediation detail that is only partly sourced."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "It is rigorous and well positioned, with a good account of limits, but it cites Petersen and Rajan (1997), Ng et al. (2002) and Klapper et al. (2012) for claims about that literature that the source does not support, and it asserts symmetry and heterogeneity findings."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 3, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "It is readable but thin on identification, and it claims that 'prior work on this channel is largely theoretical' and that the effects are concentrated in nonexclusive relationships, which misreads the source."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 3, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "It overclaims a 'direct test' and 'identifies the interaction', and it asserts that the Superstore lowers prices and that the spot price is an alternative, neither of which the source supports. It also says the 90-day demand is a finding and says little about limits."}}, "best": "E_full_engine", "notes": "Q and R are strongest on methodological rigor and bounded claims. R's extra references are not supported by the source for the claims it makes about them, so Q ranks above R. N is the most faithful of the set.", "cost_usd": 0.080002, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:16+00:00", "task": "improve_table", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 1, "pass": "B", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "A_baseline", "L": "E_no_retrieval", "M": "E_full_engine", "N": "B_strong_prompt", "P": "C_conventional_rag", "Q": "E_no_referee", "R": "E_no_factcheck", "S": "E_no_profile", "T": "D_profiles_retrieval"}, "scores": {"A_baseline": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Mostly faithful, but it adds 'percentage points' and 'single-name equivalents' for Table III, it omits the label, and the caption is unchanged; many TODOs remain."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Its identification paragraph is strong and bounded, but it asserts that the shocks are 'driven by valuation changes on other parts of the portfolio', that a negative value corresponds to a margin payment, and that Figure 2 addresses horizon; the label is only a comment and the notes are heavy with TODOs."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "It is careful, flags every uncertainty, and has a bounded interpretation; the regression (5) reference is flagged, and the TODOs make it somewhat cluttered."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "It is cleanly organized, but it asserts $ billion for Table III and that X_t is absorbed by industry-by-time effects, and it states a sign interpretation that is not fully supported."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "It asserts the full Feb 2010–Oct 2016 period and the significance conventions as fact with only a confirm flag, and the unit stated as $ billion is taken from other tables; otherwise it is clean."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Clear and usable, but it states significance levels and the reporting of observations and R2 as fact, and the 'U.S. reference entities in DTCC' wording goes slightly beyond the source."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "It is faithful and flags units, but it has too many TODOs and no italic line breaks, and it asserts the sign interpretation; the Section II.B.1 reference is plausible."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 5, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Thorough and well bounded, with a good interpretation note, but it states $ billion as fact while flagging it, and the Section III reference is a minor addition."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Faithful, with sensible warnings (do not assume double clustering), though it states $ billion as fact and omits the label."}}, "best": "E_full_engine", "notes": "All outputs are similar; M and T are the most careful about fidelity and flagged uncertainty.", "cost_usd": 0.058432, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:17+00:00", "task": "draft_introduction", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 1, "pass": "B", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "D_profiles_retrieval", "L": "B_strong_prompt", "M": "E_no_referee", "N": "A_baseline", "P": "E_no_factcheck", "Q": "E_full_engine", "R": "E_no_retrieval", "S": "C_conventional_rag", "T": "E_no_profile"}, "scores": {"D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "A clear and well-ordered draft that is faithful on the key numbers, but it claims that index swaps are 'large and economically important' and that the tsunami originated outside the US economy, it cites Kyle–Xiong for the tsunami design, it has no explicit contribution paragraph, and it is truncated."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Includes an explicit contribution section with differentiated literatures and ties results to tables and figures, but it asserts that prior work relied on aggregate proxies and distress episodes (MBS, reinsurance), which is not in the source, and it is truncated."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 4, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Strong and well organised with table, figure and section pointers, but it calls the tsunami 'plausibly exogenous', gives exact sample dates, and says the CDS measure retains its power; there is no explicit contribution paragraph and it is truncated."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Motivates the paper with a gap in aggregate proxies and includes a contribution paragraph, but it names broker-dealer leverage and primary-dealer capitalization as the proxies and states a directional tsunami result that the source does not support; it is truncated."}, "E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 3, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "The best treatment of identification, with an explicit assumption, threats and a caution that the variance share is not causal, plus an author flag on dynamic-panel bias; however, it has no contribution positioning, it is somewhat list-heavy, and it is truncated."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 3, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Faithful and clear, but it is cut off very early, before the main results and the contribution."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 3, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 1, "justification": "Candid about what the design can and cannot establish, with careful treatment of threats and hedging limits, but it lacks a contribution paragraph, is long, and is truncated."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 5, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Frames two explicit research questions and explains the identification logic well, but it states a directional tsunami finding and claims the shock-size test is evaluated directly without source support; it is truncated."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 5, "contribution_positioning": 3, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 6, "usefulness": 3, "n_invented_facts": 0, "justification": "Faithful and clear but cut off early, so it contains almost no findings or contribution."}}, "best": "E_no_factcheck", "notes": "All outputs are truncated. P and R engage most honestly with identification limits. L is the only one with a developed contribution section but adds unsupported claims about prior work. Outputs that report the tsunami result directionally (N, S) go beyond the source.", "cost_usd": 0.079052, "ok": true, "raw": null}
{"ts": "2026-11-04T00:46:19+00:00", "task": "rewrite_literature", "doc": "jof_12777", "rep": 1, "pass": "B", "judge_model": "claude-sonnet-5-5", "mapping": {"K": "E_no_factcheck", "L": "C_conventional_rag", "M": "B_strong_prompt", "N": "E_no_profile", "P": "E_no_referee", "Q": "D_profiles_retrieval", "R": "E_full_engine", "S": "E_no_retrieval", "T": "A_baseline"}, "scores": {"E_no_factcheck": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "Well-structured and bounded, with honest caveats; some invented characterizations of cited works (Chen et al. 'crash insurance' is fine, but Brownlees and Engle, Collin-Dufresne findings, and 'placebo tests' details are embellished) and an 'I do not interpret as additive' addition."}, "C_conventional_rag": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 7, "justification": "Clear thematic organisation, but it invents descriptions of cited works (Mitchell et al. as convertible and merger arbitrage; Acharya et al. as 'concentrated shocks'), misspells Schachar, and includes a stray todo footnote."}, "B_strong_prompt": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 7, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 5, "justification": "Sharp differentiation and logical flow, but it adds unsupported details (broker-dealer leverage, primary dealer capital ratio, Coval and Stafford 'mutual funds', horizon result claimed, 'comparable') and one claim about margin payments."}, "E_no_profile": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Strong engagement with identification threats and limits, and claims bounded to what the source supports; minor embellishment on the cited theory descriptions and a todo footnote."}, "E_no_referee": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 3, "justification": "Clean, faithful and proportionate, with modest embellishments (e.g., Murfin as lender losses, Mitchell as arbitrage activity); it retains a todo marker and a slight repetition of the data sentence."}, "D_profiles_retrieval": {"clarity": 4, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 5, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 4, "n_invented_facts": 5, "justification": "Contains stray broken LaTeX citation markup and a meta-comment, which hurts usability; it also invents details (Chen, Joslin, and Ni on quantities in index options; Mitchell as convertible bond arbitrage; primary dealers' capital ratio)."}, "E_full_engine": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 7, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 2, "justification": "Explicit identifying assumption, threats, limits and section cross-references that match the source; mostly faithful, with a small embellishment on Murfin and Mitchell."}, "E_no_retrieval": {"clarity": 7, "argument_logic": 7, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 6, "fidelity": 5, "usefulness": 6, "n_invented_facts": 4, "justification": "Very well organised with bounded claims and honest limits, but it adds invented descriptions (Gabaix et al. on prepayment risk, Mitchell slow recoveries, Brownlees and Engle) and cites Duffie (1999) loosely."}, "A_baseline": {"clarity": 6, "argument_logic": 6, "contribution_positioning": 6, "methodological_rigor": 4, "fidelity": 4, "usefulness": 5, "n_invented_facts": 5, "justification": "Readable, but it misdescribes Gabaix et al. (non-systematic risk logic), adds details on broker-dealer leverage and the primary dealer capital ratio, and gives thin treatment of identification threats."}}, "best": "E_full_engine", "notes": "All outputs relied on elaborating cited works beyond the source. R and N stayed closest to the source while engaging identification and limits. Q has formatting defects.", "cost_usd": 0.076246, "ok": true, "raw": null}