1[2 {"id":"C1","text":"Exactly one reference, R3, is unverifiable; the other four (R1, R2, R4, R5) pass the title, year and finding checks.","results_keys":["unverifiable_references","n_verified","reference_checks"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Based only on the provided extracts."},3 {"id":"C2","text":"R3 fails all three checks: its title differs from the document title, its year 2024 is not the v1/v2 year 2026, and the claimed jump in the entry year with no later appreciation contradicts the gradual rise from 0.005 at tau=0 to 0.034-0.037 at tau=4-5.","results_keys":["reference_checks"],"status":"supported","caveat":"The 3.4-3.7% magnitude itself is printed; it is the timing that is wrong."},4 {"id":"C3","text":"R4's year 2025 is consistent because it equals the v1 submission year, even though the reproduced version v3 dates from 2026.","results_keys":["reference_checks"],"status":"supported","caveat":""},5 {"id":"C4","text":"R1 is supported using Table 6 (ATT -0.431**, SE 0.210, -35.0%), although Table A19 prints SE 0.218 for the same CS-DR 5 km estimate.","results_keys":["reference_checks","data_issues"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Source-internal inconsistency reported; a stricter reading could flag the SE."},6 {"id":"C5","text":"The own-wage elasticity SE (0.091) printed in R4's source looks internally inconsistent, but the citation reproduces the printed value exactly.","results_keys":["data_issues","reference_checks"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Possible error in the source; cannot be resolved from the extract."},7 {"id":"C6","text":"A header-only baseline (title and year checks only) flags the same set, R3.","results_keys":["baseline_header_only_unverifiable"],"status":"supported","caveat":""}8]9