1[2 {"id":"C1","text":"The closed-form Walrasian equilibrium price is p1/p2 = 0.875 (=5.6/6.4), using aggregate endowments (12, 10) from the individual endowments.","results_keys":["price_ratio_p1_over_p2","aggregate_endowment_good1","aggregate_endowment_good2"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Relies on resolving the summary-sheet discrepancy (14 vs 12) in favour of endowments.csv."},3 {"id":"C2","text":"Independent root-finding of the aggregate excess demand for good 1 reproduces the closed-form price to within 2.2e-16.","results_keys":["price_ratio_numerical","price_abs_diff_closed_vs_numerical"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Validation for this parameter set only."},4 {"id":"C3","text":"Equilibrium allocation: A consumes (4.1143, 5.4), B consumes (7.8857, 4.6).","results_keys":["x1_A","x2_A","x1_B","x2_B"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Interior Cobb-Douglas demands assumed."},5 {"id":"C4","text":"Both markets clear and the Walras' law residual is zero at the reported price.","results_keys":["excess_demand_good1","excess_demand_good2","walras_law_residual"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Zero to double precision."},6 {"id":"C5","text":"The summary-sheet aggregate endowment of good 1 (14) is inconsistent with the individual endowments (sum 12); clearing against 14 yields no consistent equilibrium.","results_keys":["data_issues","aggregate_endowment_good1_summary_sheet","aggregate_endowment_good1"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Which source is wrong cannot be determined from the inputs."}7]8