1{2 "task_id": "F4-conf-04",3 "reference_checks": {4 "R1": {5 "title_matches": true,6 "year_matches": true,7 "finding_supported": true,8 "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 6, row ATT / % change, column 5 km (+ Section 6 text: significant at the 5% level)",9 "note": "Title and 2026 year match; Table 6 5 km column prints ATT -0.431** (0.210), -35.0%, and the text states significance at 5% and the staggered DiD on hospital records, so the finding is supported (Table A19 prints SE 0.218 for the same estimate, still p<0.05)."10 },11 "R2": {12 "title_matches": true,13 "year_matches": true,14 "finding_supported": true,15 "locator": "arxiv-2606.14621v1 | Table 2, rows Wage / Reemployment / Weeks on UI, column Average treatment effect estimate",16 "note": "Title and 2026 year match; Table 2 ATE column gives $1,153 (95% CI [166, 2,141]), 1.47 pp and -1.99 weeks, and the abstract gives N = 23,549 in a preregistered RCT, so every element is supported."17 },18 "R3": {19 "title_matches": false,20 "year_matches": false,21 "finding_supported": false,22 "locator": "arxiv-2603.03260v2 | Section 3.2 'Headline dynamic pattern' (stacked coefficients tau=0..5) and Table 3, row Clean-onset threshold-2",23 "note": "Fails all three checks: the entry's title is a different title, 2024 is neither the first-submission (2026) nor version (2026) year, and the source reports ~0.5% (0.005) in the event year rising gradually to 3.4-3.7% by years 4-5, contradicting a 3.4-3.7% jump at entry with no further appreciation."24 },25 "R4": {26 "title_matches": true,27 "year_matches": true,28 "finding_supported": true,29 "locator": "arxiv-2505.04555v3 | Appendix A.1, Table 2, rows 'Employment elasticity w.r.t MW' and 'Emp. elasticity w.r.t affected wage'",30 "note": "Title matches and 2025 equals the v1 submission year; Table 2 prints -0.388 (0.132) and -0.732 (0.091) and the abstract places the study in Japan's spot labor market, so the finding is stated (note: the printed SE 0.091 for the own-wage elasticity looks inconsistent with its components)."31 },32 "R5": {33 "title_matches": true,34 "year_matches": true,35 "finding_supported": true,36 "locator": "arxiv-2510.03658v1 | Table 3, column (4), rows Treatment / % Change (+ Section 4.1: preferred specification)",37 "note": "Title and 2025 year match; Table 3 column (4), the preferred specification, prints -0.0962 (0.0129) and % change -0.3685 (= -0.0962/0.261), matching the stated 36.85% reduction."38 }39 },40 "unverifiable_references": [41 "R3"42 ],43 "n_verified": 4,44 "feasibility": "complete",45 "feasibility_reason": null,46 "data_issues": [47 {48 "issue": "arxiv-2609.27732v1: the 5 km CS-DR ATT -0.431 has SE (0.210) in Table 6 but (0.218) in Table A19; the A19 note says 640 never-treated regions while its body and Tables 6-7 say 608.",49 "handling": "R1 cites Table 6, which is the main-text table and matches the text; the discrepancy does not change significance at 5% (t = 2.05 vs 1.98, both starred **). Reported, not resolved."50 },51 {52 "issue": "arxiv-2609.27732v1: the abstract says fatal hospitalisations fall by 35% and narcotics poisonings rise 'by a comparable amount', but Table 7 (5 km: -0.354, +0.390 log points) and Section 6.1 give about 30% and 47%.",53 "handling": "Internal inconsistency of the source; not an element of R1's cited finding, so it does not affect the R1 verdict."54 },55 {56 "issue": "arxiv-2505.04555v3: Table 2 prints SE (0.091) for the own-wage elasticity -0.732, identical to the SE of 'Affected employment'; a delta-method approximation from the printed components (ignoring covariance) gives about 0.42.",57 "handling": "Possible transcription error in the source; R4 reproduces the value as printed, so the finding counts as stated in the extract, with a caveat in the note and report."58 },59 {60 "issue": "arxiv-2603.03260v2: the Table 3 header row is garbled in the HTML rendering.",61 "handling": "Used the column order supplied by the extract editor's note; the cells used agree with the Section 3.2 text (0.037 at tau=4, 0.034 at tau=5)."62 },63 {64 "issue": "arxiv-2510.03658v1: footnote markers are rendered inline (e.g. 'percent^9^9 9') and footnote 11 percentages are detached from their sentence.",65 "handling": "Rendering defect only; R5 relies on Table 3 and the main text, which are unaffected."66 },67 {68 "issue": "arxiv-2606.14621v1: Tables 2-3 were re-set by the extract editor, and the text has a rendering defect ('p ¡ 0.001').",69 "handling": "Re-setting is declared in the header with values verbatim; the Table 2 values used match the Section 3 text."70 }71 ],72 "n_input_rows": {73 "README.md": 17,74 "reference_list.json": 5,75 "arxiv-2609.27732v1.txt": 134,76 "arxiv-2606.14621v1.txt": 58,77 "arxiv-2603.03260v2.txt": 107,78 "arxiv-2505.04555v3.txt": 66,79 "arxiv-2510.03658v1.txt": 9180 },81 "n_analysed": 5,82 "random_seed": null,83 "baseline_unverifiable_references_bibliographic_only": [84 "R3"85 ],86 "baseline_n_verified_bibliographic_only": 487}88