1{2 "verdict": "accept",3 "issues": [4 {"id": "R1", "severity": "minor", "location": "out/report.md (Data and exclusions); results.json data_issues",5 "issue": "All 12 negative-hours rows are low-skill firms (skill_index between -3.0 and -1.0), so the exclusion is not random with respect to the confounder. The report does not mention this pattern. Its effect on the estimate is small: including the rows gives 0.252 vs 0.254 (sensitivity_all_rows_*).",6 "suggested_fix": "Add a note that the excluded rows are concentrated at low skill, which suggests unclipped noise in assigned hours. Point to the sensitivity fit as the evidence that this does not change the conclusion."},7 {"id": "R2", "severity": "minor", "location": "results.json naive_estimate",8 "issue": "The required baseline is fitted on the 1188-row analysis sample, not all 1200 rows. This is defensible because both models use the same sample, and the all-rows naive slope (-0.135) is reported. But the main text does not say explicitly which sample the baseline uses.",9 "suggested_fix": "State in Method that the baseline uses the same 1188-firm sample as the main model."},10 {"id": "R3", "severity": "minor", "location": "out/report.md (Data and exclusions)",11 "issue": "The skill-growth correlation (-0.79, all 1200 rows) and the SHA-256 check are cited from out/state/data_audit.md. Neither is a results.json key, and neither is produced by analysis.py.",12 "suggested_fix": "Compute the correlation in analysis.py and add it to results.json, or label it clearly as coming from the audit only."}13 ],14 "summary": "In a scratch copy, analysis.py reproduced results.json and table1.csv exactly. All required keys are present and consistent. The code reads only data/firms.csv and adjusts only for the pre-treatment covariate skill_index, so the information rules are respected. Counts are consistent (1200 - 12 = 1188). The conclusion code matches the CI. The baseline, table and figure meet the specification. Claims are supported and appropriately caveated, and the limitations section has a real failure discussion. Only minor presentation issues remain."15}16