Data audit (P1)
| file | sha256 | rows x cols |
|---|---|---|
| data/endowments.csv | fc130a2f54c750a5834ec7314060d91f7984769c7c006ad04b98582a016ba74b | 2 x 3 (agent, good1, good2) |
| data/parameters.csv | 717807e75337fbf4aff8e4d74e0fc0b83b799f78fa689172be0d501cb3e43983 | 4 x 3 (parameter, value, description) |
- endowments: A=(8,2), B=(4,8); units of goods; no missing values, no duplicate agents, all strictly positive.
- parameters: alpha_A=0.4, alpha_B=0.6 (both in (0,1)); aggregate_endowment_good1=14.0, aggregate_endowment_good2=10.0.
- No dates (theoretical exercise), so there is no time-availability issue.
Anomaly
Sum of individual endowments: good1 = 8+4 = 12, good2 = 2+8 = 10. The summary sheet records good1 = 14, which is inconsistent (+2). Good2 matches.
Decision. The task names endowments.csv as the primary data. The aggregate endowment must equal the sum of individual endowments for the economy to be well-defined: agents' incomes come from their individual endowments, so using 14 in the market-clearing condition would make the clearing condition and the budget constraints describe different economies and break Walras' law. Use 12 (derived). Record the discrepancy in data_issues; report the price implied by the (invalid) 14 only as a sensitivity in report.md, not as a result. No rows excluded.