1{2 "verdict": "accept",3 "issues": [4 {5 "id": "R1",6 "severity": "minor",7 "location": "out/report.md (Results, E5)",8 "issue": "Double negative: 'lowers the probability ... by −9.62 percentage points' reads as an increase. The stored value (-9.62 pp) is correct.",9 "suggested_fix": "Write either 'lowers ... by 9.62 percentage points' or 'changes ... by −9.62 pp'."10 },11 {12 "id": "R2",13 "severity": "minor",14 "location": "harmonised.E3 / report.md Method",15 "issue": "The Table 2 cell is labelled '% MW changes' but its value 0.047 is read as a proportion (4.7%), not as 0.047%. This is the reasonable reading, since it agrees with the note's 'about 4%', but the report does not explain why it chose it.",16 "suggested_fix": "Add one sentence explaining the proportional reading of the '% MW changes' cell and pointing to the note's 'about 4%' as corroboration."17 },18 {19 "id": "R3",20 "severity": "minor",21 "location": "out/analysis.py",22 "issue": "The row-matching regexes hard-code printed values (e.g. '^ATT \\| -0\\.399', '^% change \\| -32\\.9%'). The script is deterministic and reproduces results.json byte-for-byte, but these patterns only work with this exact extract.",23 "suggested_fix": "Match on row labels together with table context rather than on the numbers themselves (optional)."24 },25 {26 "id": "R4",27 "severity": "minor",28 "location": "claims.json C2 / harmonised.E2",29 "issue": "E2 divides a block-adjusted ATE by the raw aggregate control mean. The caveat says so. The Uncertainty section still calls E2 'exact', which slightly overstates its precision as a counterfactual-relative effect.",30 "suggested_fix": "Call E2 exact arithmetically but approximate as a relative-to-counterfactual effect, because the control mean is unadjusted."31 }32 ],33 "summary": "All required keys are present. I re-ran analysis.py in a scratch copy and it reproduces results.json byte-for-byte. Each input value matches the cited extract line: E1 −0.431 (Table 6 l.36), E2 1.47 pp and 75.0% (Table 2 l.29), E3 −0.388 and 0.047 (Table 2 l.50/60), E4 −0.354 (Table 7 l.86), E5 −0.0962 (Table 3 l.49). The transformations follow the TASK conventions and the arithmetic is correct. E4 is correctly declared not harmonisable: the extract prints no fatal-rate level, and the missing quantity is named. No outside values are used. The counts (4 harmonised, 1 not), feasibility 'complete', and the line counts are consistent. The data_issues list is accurate and thorough. Only minor wording and robustness points remain."34}35