1{2 "task_id": "F4-conf-03",3 "harmonised": {4 "E1": {5 "value": -35.01,6 "unit": "percent change relative to the counterfactual hospitalisation rate",7 "transformation": "100*(exp(b)-1) with b = -0.431** (log points) -> 100*(exp(-0.431)-1) = -35.0141 %; consistent with printed '% change' -35.0%",8 "harmonisable": true,9 "missing_quantity": null,10 "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 6 | row 'ATT' | column '5 km' (line 36); cross-check row '% change', column '5 km'"11 },12 "E2": {13 "value": 1.96,14 "unit": "percent of the control-group mean reemployment rate",15 "transformation": "100*Delta/p with Delta = 1.47 pp and p = 75.0% (control mean) -> 100*1.47/75.0 = 1.9600 %",16 "harmonisable": true,17 "missing_quantity": null,18 "locator": "arxiv-2606.14621v1 | Table 2 | row 'Reemployment' | columns 'Average treatment effect estimate' (Delta) and 'Control' (p) (line 29)"19 },20 "E3": {21 "value": -1.82,22 "unit": "percent change in employment",23 "transformation": "100*eta*g with eta = -0.388 and g = 0.047 (proportional MW change, read as 4.7%; the table note says 'about 4%') -> 100*-0.388*0.047 = -1.8236 %",24 "harmonisable": true,25 "missing_quantity": null,26 "locator": "arxiv-2505.04555v3 | Table 2 | row 'Employment elasticity w.r.t MW' | column 'Estimate (SE)' (line 50); row '% MW changes' | column 'Estimate (SE)' (line 60)"27 },28 "E4": {29 "value": null,30 "unit": "hospitalisations per 100,000 inhabitants per year",31 "transformation": "Absolute change = R0*(exp(b)-1) with b = -0.354** (log points), i.e. relative change 100*(exp(-0.354)-1) = -29.8125 %; R0 (counterfactual/baseline fatal rate per 100,000 in treated regions) is not printed in the extract, so the absolute change cannot be computed",32 "harmonisable": false,33 "missing_quantity": "baseline (counterfactual, e.g. pre-opening or control-group mean) level of the fatal drug-related hospitalisation rate per 100,000 inhabitants per year in the 5 km treated regions",34 "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 7 | row 'Drug-related (fatal)' | column '5 km' (line 86)"35 },36 "E5": {37 "value": -9.62,38 "unit": "percentage points",39 "transformation": "100*beta with beta = -0.0962 (change in probability, 0-1 scale) -> 100*(-0.0962) = -9.6200 pp",40 "harmonisable": true,41 "missing_quantity": null,42 "locator": "arxiv-2510.03658v1 | Table 3 | row 'Treatment' | column '(4)' (line 49)"43 }44 },45 "n_harmonised": 4,46 "n_not_harmonisable": 1,47 "feasibility": "complete",48 "feasibility_reason": null,49 "data_issues": [50 {51 "issue": "arxiv-2505.04555v3 Table 2: the row '% MW changes' prints 0.047, a label suggesting percent units while the value is only consistent with a proportion (4.7%); the table note describes the change as 'about 4%'.",52 "handling": "Read 0.047 as a proportional change g = 0.047 (4.7%), the only reading compatible with the note ('about 4%'); the printed table value (not the rounded note value) is used."53 },54 {55 "issue": "arxiv-2609.27732v1: the abstract states that fatal outcomes 'fall by 35%', but Table 7 (5 km) prints -0.354** log points, i.e. 100*(exp(-0.354)-1) = -29.8%; Section 6.1 says 'approximately 30%', consistent with Table 7. The 35% matches the overall ATT (Table 6), not the fatal outcome.",56 "handling": "Table 7 is used as the authoritative printed estimate for E4; the abstract figure is not used."57 },58 {59 "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 Table A19 note mentions 640 never-treated comparison regions while the table body and Tables 6-7 print 608.",60 "handling": "Does not affect the point estimate used in E1 (identical -0.431 in both tables); Table 6 is used as the cited location. No uncertainty is propagated."61 },62 {63 "issue": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 Table A19: printed '% change' differs in the last decimal from 100*(exp(ATT)-1) for: -0.362* -> -30.37% vs printed -30.3%; -0.149*** -> -13.84% vs printed -13.9%.",64 "handling": "Minor rounding inconsistency in a robustness table not used for any item; recorded only."65 },66 {67 "issue": "arxiv-2510.03658v1: Table 3 column (4) prints '% Change' -0.3685 while -0.0962/0.261 = -0.3686 (last-digit difference, presumably from an unrounded mean). The abstract's '0.0855 (a 18.79 percentage change)' refers to a 'table 2' (mean 0.455) that is not in the extract.",68 "handling": "E5 uses the Table 3 column (4) coefficient as printed and converts only the scale (x100 -> pp); the abstract/Table 2 numbers and the '% Change' row are not used."69 },70 {71 "issue": "Rendering defects: arxiv-2510.03658v1 footnote markers are rendered inline (e.g. 'percent^9^9 9') and footnote 11 is interleaved with main text; arxiv-2606.14621v1 renders 'p < 0.001' as 'p ¡ 0.001'.",72 "handling": "No numbers used in E1-E5 are affected; recorded only."73 },74 {75 "issue": "arxiv-2606.14621v1 Table 2: the control-group mean (75.0%) is a raw aggregate mean, whereas the ATE (1.47 pp) adjusts for randomisation week (blocks); the abstract rounds the ATE to 1.5 pp.",76 "handling": "Following the target definition ('percent of the control-group mean'), the printed control mean 75.0% is used as p and the Table 2 ATE 1.47 pp (not the rounded 1.5) as Delta; the denominator mismatch is noted as a limitation."77 }78 ],79 "n_input_rows": {80 "effects.json": 5,81 "README.md": 16,82 "sources/arxiv-2609.27732v1.txt": 134,83 "sources/arxiv-2606.14621v1.txt": 58,84 "sources/arxiv-2505.04555v3.txt": 66,85 "sources/arxiv-2510.03658v1.txt": 9186 },87 "n_analysed": 5,88 "random_seed": null,89 "baseline_printed_values": {90 "E1": -0.431,91 "E2": 1.47,92 "E3": -0.388,93 "E4": -0.354,94 "E5": -0.096295 },96 "baseline_printed_units": {97 "E1": "log points",98 "E2": "percentage points",99 "E3": "elasticity (unitless)",100 "E4": "log points",101 "E5": "probability change (0-1 scale)"102 }103}