# F4-conf-02 — Is each quoted assertion supported by the source it cites?

# Scientific question

A literature review drafted from two open-access studies contains six assertions, each citing one of the two sources provided. For every assertion, decide from the cited extract alone whether it is supported (every element of the assertion — sign, magnitude, uncertainty statement, significance claim, population — is stated in, or follows arithmetically from, the source), not_supported (at least one element is contradicted by the source or does not follow from it), or not_assessable (the source does not report the quantity or comparison needed to judge the assertion, so it can be neither confirmed nor refuted from the extract). Each verdict must carry a locator (source id and the table, row/column or section that decides it) and a one-sentence reason. The estimands are the six verdicts.

# Inputs

data/assertions.json — list of the six assertions: {"id", "cites" (source id), "text"}.
data/sources/arxiv-2609.27732v1.txt — extract of Armendariz (2026), Do Drug Consumption Rooms Reduce Drug-Related Hospitalizations? Evidence from Switzerland, arXiv:2609.27732v1 [econ.GN], CC BY 4.0: abstract, Section 6 (Results: Table 6 overall ATT by buffer; Table 7 ATT by outcome category and buffer; Section 6.1 Mechanisms) and Appendix Table A19. Outcomes are log hospitalisation rates per 100,000 inhabitants (ATTs in log points; the "% change" rows and the text convert them to percentage changes); standard errors in parentheses, clustered at the MedStat region level; stars: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.10.
data/sources/arxiv-2606.14621v1.txt — extract of Li, Pearson-Merkowitz & Yokum (2026), Evaluating the Impact of Rhode Island's Self-Sustaining RESEA Program on Employment Outcomes, arXiv:2606.14621v1 [econ.GN], CC BY 4.0: abstract, Section 3 Results (Table 2 with group means, treatment–control differences and ATE estimates with p-values and 95% CIs; results text; Section 3.1) and Table 3. Tables 2 and 3 were re-set one row per outcome (values verbatim; see the extract header).
data/README.md — provenance, retrieval times, licences, SHA-256 of the extracts.

# Information-availability rules

The extracts are the only admissible evidence. Do not use remembered content of the papers, other versions, or outside knowledge of the programmes.
A percentage change implied by a log-point coefficient b is 100·(exp(b) − 1); a 95% confidence interval from a printed standard error is the estimate ± 1.96·SE (2.0 is also acceptable). Use these conventions when an assertion requires a conversion the source does not print.
"Supported" requires every element of the assertion to hold; an assertion that is partly correct and partly contradicted is not_supported. Use not_assessable only when the extract contains no quantity or comparison bearing on the claim (e.g. a subgroup the source never reports), not when the claim is merely imprecise.
A locator has the form <source id> | Table <n> | row "<row>" | column "<col>" or <source id> | Section <n or title>; one locator per assertion.

# Required outputs

out/results.json with the keys:

key	type	unit	meaning
`verdicts`	object	—	{"A1": "supported" / "not_supported" / "not_assessable", …, "A6": …}
`locators`	object	—	{"A1": "", …} — the table/section that decides the verdict (for `not_assessable`, the table/section where the relevant outcome is reported, or "not reported in ")
`reasons`	object	—	{"A1": "", …}
`n_supported`, `n_not_supported`, `n_not_assessable`	integer	—	counts over the six assertions
`task_id`	string	—	"F4-conf-02"
`feasibility`	string	—	"complete", "partial" or "infeasible" — refers to the task as a whole
`feasibility_reason`	string or null	—	explanation if not complete
`data_issues`	array of {"issue","handling"}	—	problems detected in the inputs (rendering defects, internal inconsistencies of a source, etc.) and how they were handled; empty list if none
`n_input_rows`	object	lines / items	{file name: number of lines} for every file under `data/` that you read (text files: number of newline-terminated lines as reported by `wc -l`; JSON files: number of top-level items)
`n_analysed`	integer or null	—	number of reported items (values, assertions, effects or references) you actually assessed
`random_seed`	integer or null	—	null (no randomness is involved)

out/report.md with the sections: Question; Data and exclusions; Method; Results; Uncertainty; Limitations and open issues. "Uncertainty" must discuss which verdicts depend on a convention (critical value, log-to-percent conversion) and whether the verdict would change under a reasonable alternative.
out/analysis.py — running ~/wp29/venv/bin/python out/analysis.py from the workspace root must regenerate out/results.json from data/ only, deterministically (the script may encode the verdict logic explicitly; it must print the source lines it relies on).
out/claims.json — a list of the central claims of the report: [{"id": "C1", "text": "...", "results_keys": ["..."], "status": "supported"|"unsupported"|"not_evaluated", "caveat": "..."}].

# Constraints

No network access. Python: ~/wp29/venv/bin/python (numpy, pandas, scipy, statsmodels available; the standard library is sufficient for this task). Do not modify data/.
The source extracts under data/sources/ are the only admissible evidence. Do not rely on memory of the papers or on other versions of them; if a quantity is not in the extract, it is not available.
Report numbers exactly as printed in the source (same sign, same number of decimals); do not round or rescale printed values unless the key definition asks for a transformation.
This task is designed to be completed in well under 20 minutes of work.

spb/wp29_uqo