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 (with Section 6 text and abstract)",9 "note": "Title and 2026 year match; Table 6 5 km column prints ATT -0.431** (0.210), -35.0%, significant at 5%, Callaway-Sant'Anna staggered DiD on hospital records, so every element is supported (Table A19 prints SE 0.218 for the same estimate, see data_issues)."10 },11 "R2": {12 "title_matches": true,13 "year_matches": true,14 "finding_supported": true,15 "locator": "arxiv-2606.14621v1 | Table 2, column 'Average treatment effect estimate', rows Wage / Reemployment / Weeks on UI (N and design: abstract)",16 "note": "Title and 2026 year match; Table 2 ATE column prints $1,153 (95% CI [166, 2,141]), 1.47 pp and -1.99 weeks, and the abstract states a preregistered RCT with N = 23,549."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 coefficient 0.005 at tau=0) and Table 3, row 'Clean-onset threshold-2', columns tau=4 (0.037) / tau=5 (0.034)",23 "note": "Entry has a different title and year 2024 (record: v1 3 Mar 2026, v2 2 Apr 2026), and the extract reports ~0.5% at entry rising gradually to 3.4-3.7% only by years 4-5, contradicting the cited immediate jump with no later 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 first-submission year (v1 7 May 2025); Table 2 prints -0.388 (0.132) and -0.732 (0.091) for Japan's spot labour market."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 and % Change (Section 4.1 names column (4) as preferred)",37 "note": "Title and 2025 year match; Table 3 column (4) prints Treatment -0.0962 (0.0129) and % Change -0.3685 (36.85%), and Section 4.1 calls column (4) the preferred specification."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 whereas Tables 6-7 say 608.",49 "handling": "Internal inconsistency of the source. R1 cites Table 6 (the main table), whose SE 0.210 matches the citation; both SEs give |t|>1.96, so the 5% significance claim holds either way. Not grounds for flagging R1; recorded."50 },51 {52 "issue": "arxiv-2609.27732v1: the extract header announces 'the paragraph that discusses' Table A19, but the file ends at the A19 note (no discussion paragraph); abstract says fatal outcomes fall by 35% while Section 6.1 says ~30% (Table 7 5 km: -0.354).",53 "handling": "Not needed for the R1 check (decided by Table 6); recorded only."54 },55 {56 "issue": "arxiv-2603.03260v2: Table 3 header row is garbled in the rendering.",57 "handling": "Used the extract editor's note giving the six column names in order; tau=4 / tau=5 columns read as 0.037 / 0.034 for the preferred row, consistent with the Section 3.2 text."58 },59 {60 "issue": "arxiv-2606.14621v1: rendering defect 'p ¡ 0.001' in the short-term weeks-on-UI sentence; the text reports the weeks-on-UI CI as positive magnitudes while Table 2 prints negative bounds.",61 "handling": "Read '¡' as '<'; sign difference is a reduction-vs-change convention. Neither affects R2 (decided by Table 2)."62 },63 {64 "issue": "arxiv-2505.04555v3: the printed SE of the own-wage elasticity (0.091) is identical to the SE of 'Affected employment' (0.091), although the point estimate is a ratio (-0.268/0.366 = -0.732).",65 "handling": "Possible source-side copy error that cannot be resolved from the extract; the citation reproduces the printed value exactly, so R4's finding is treated as supported. Recorded as a caveat."66 },67 {68 "issue": "arxiv-2510.03658v1: abstract headline effect (0.0855, 18.79%, from Table 2, not in extract) differs from Table 3 column (4) (0.0962, 36.85%); Table 3 % Change -0.3685 vs -0.0962/0.261 = -0.3686.",69 "handling": "Different outcome definitions (count vs binary); the citation explicitly refers to the preferred specification of the binary outcome (Table 3). Last-digit difference is rounding. Not grounds for flagging R5."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_bibliographic_only": [84 "R3"85 ],86 "baseline_n_verified_bibliographic_only": 487}