1[2 {"id":"C1","text":"The conventional OLS 95% interval does not attain its nominal coverage: estimated coverage is 0.844, more than three Monte Carlo standard errors below 0.95.","results_keys":["coverage_conventional","conventional_ci_undercovers"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Specific to this fixed heteroskedastic design with Gaussian errors; MC SE ≈ 0.008."},3 {"id":"C2","text":"The HC1 interval improves coverage to 0.902 but still undercovers relative to 95% in this n = 30 design.","results_keys":["coverage_hc1"],"status":"supported","caveat":"MC SE ≈ 0.0066; HC2/HC3 or bootstrap alternatives not evaluated."},4 {"id":"C3","text":"The conventional SE is biased downward: its mean (0.190) is well below the exact SD of the slope estimator (0.268).","results_keys":["mean_se_conventional","sd_beta_exact"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Mean se_conv is a Monte Carlo estimate."},5 {"id":"C4","text":"The simulated SD of the slope estimator (0.2696) matches the analytical exact SD (0.2680) within Monte Carlo error.","results_keys":["sd_beta_mc","sd_beta_exact"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Relative MC error of the SD is about 1.6%."}6]7