1{2 "task_id": "F4-conf-03",3 "harmonised": {4 "E1": {5 "value": -35.0141,6 "unit": "percent of the counterfactual hospitalisation rate",7 "transformation": "100*(exp(b)-1) with b=-0.431** -> 100*(exp(-0.431)-1) = -35.0141% (cross-check: printed '% change' row = -35.0%)",8 "harmonisable": true,9 "missing_quantity": null,10 "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 6 | row 'ATT' (line 36) | column '5 km'; cross-check row '% change' (line 40) | 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, p=75.0% -> 100*1.47/75.0 = 1.9600%",16 "harmonisable": true,17 "missing_quantity": null,18 "locator": "arxiv-2606.14621v1 | Table 2 | row 'Reemployment' (line 29) | column 'Average treatment effect estimate' (1.47 pp) and column 'Control' (75.0%)"19 },20 "E3": {21 "value": -1.8236,22 "unit": "percent change in employment",23 "transformation": "100*eta*g with eta=-0.388, g=0.047 (proportional MW change) -> 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' (line 50) | column 'Estimate (SE)'; row '% MW changes' (line 60) | column 'Estimate (SE)'"27 },28 "E4": {29 "value": null,30 "unit": "hospitalisations per 100,000 inhabitants per year",31 "transformation": "would be R0*(exp(b)-1) with b=-0.354**; the relative part 100*(exp(-0.354)-1) = -29.8125% is computable, but the level R0 is not printed",32 "harmonisable": false,33 "missing_quantity": "baseline/counterfactual level (mean) of the fatal drug-related hospitalisation rate per 100,000 inhabitants per year for the treated regions within 5 km (e.g. pre-opening or untreated-potential-outcome mean); not printed in the extract",34 "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 7 | row 'Drug-related (fatal)' (line 86) | column '5 km'"35 },36 "E5": {37 "value": -9.62,38 "unit": "percentage points",39 "transformation": "100*beta with beta=-0.0962 -> -9.6200 pp (exact unit rescaling)",40 "harmonisable": true,41 "missing_quantity": null,42 "locator": "arxiv-2510.03658v1 | Table 3 | row 'Treatment' (line 49) | column '(4)'"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-2609.27732v1: abstract states fatal drug-related hospitalisations 'fall by 35%', but Table 7 (5 km) prints -0.354 log points, i.e. 100*(exp(-0.354)-1) = -29.8%, and Section 6.1 says 'approximately 30%'.",52 "handling": "Table 7 value used for E4; abstract figure not used."53 },54 {55 "issue": "arxiv-2609.27732v1: Table A19 prints SE (0.218) for the CS-DR ATT -0.431 while Table 6 prints (0.210); A19 note mentions 640 never-treated regions while the tables print 608 control regions.",56 "handling": "Point estimate identical in both tables; Table 6 used for E1. SEs not propagated."57 },58 {59 "issue": "arxiv-2609.27732v1: Table A19 '% change' entries for Synthetic DiD (-30.3%) and Stacked DiD (-13.9%) differ by about 0.1 from 100*(exp(b)-1) (-30.37%, -13.84%).",60 "handling": "Not used; noted only. The Table 6 '% change' for 5 km (-35.0%) agrees with the transform of -0.431 (-35.01%)."61 },62 {63 "issue": "arxiv-2505.04555v3: Table 2 prints '% MW changes | 0.047' while the table note says 'about 4% minimum wage increase'; the row label '%' with value 0.047 is ambiguous between a proportion (4.7%) and a percent (0.047%).",64 "handling": "Table value used as instructed, read as a proportion g = 0.047 (4.7%), consistent in magnitude with the note's 'about 4%'. With g = 0.04 the result would be -1.55%."65 },66 {67 "issue": "arxiv-2510.03658v1: Table 3 col (4) prints '% Change -0.3685' while -0.0962/0.261 = -0.3686 (printed mean rounded); text refers to a Table 2 (-0.0855/0.455) that is not in the extract; footnote markers are rendered as '^9^9 9' etc.",68 "handling": "Not needed for the pp conversion of E5; noted only. Rendering artefacts ignored."69 },70 {71 "issue": "arxiv-2606.14621v1: the control mean 75.0% is the unadjusted aggregate control-group mean (rounded to 0.1), whereas the 1.47 pp ATE is adjusted for randomisation week; the printed control mean is therefore only an approximation of the counterfactual level for the ATE.",72 "handling": "Used as the denominator because the target definition specifies the control-group mean."73 }74 ],75 "n_input_rows": {76 "effects.json": 5,77 "README.md": 16,78 "arxiv-2505.04555v3.txt": 66,79 "arxiv-2510.03658v1.txt": 91,80 "arxiv-2606.14621v1.txt": 58,81 "arxiv-2609.27732v1.txt": 13482 },83 "n_analysed": 5,84 "random_seed": null,85 "baseline_printed": {86 "E1": {87 "printed_value": -0.431,88 "printed_unit": "log points"89 },90 "E2": {91 "printed_value": 1.47,92 "printed_unit": "percentage points"93 },94 "E3": {95 "printed_value": -0.388,96 "printed_unit": "elasticity (dimensionless)"97 },98 "E4": {99 "printed_value": -0.354,100 "printed_unit": "log points",101 "relative_percent_change_reachable": -29.8125102 },103 "E5": {104 "printed_value": -0.0962,105 "printed_unit": "change in probability (0-1 scale)"106 }107 }108}