1[2 {"id":"C1","text":"The closed-form competitive equilibrium relative price is p1/p2 = 0.875.","results_keys":["price_ratio_p1_over_p2"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Uses aggregate endowment of good 1 = 12 (sum of individual endowments), not the recorded 14."},3 {"id":"C2","text":"Independent root-finding of the good-1 excess demand gives the same price to machine precision.","results_keys":["price_ratio_numerical","abs_diff_closed_form_vs_numerical"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Validation limited to these inputs."},4 {"id":"C3","text":"Equilibrium allocation is x1_A=4.1143, x2_A=5.4, x1_B=7.8857, x2_B=4.6.","results_keys":["x1_A","x2_A","x1_B","x2_B"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Interior solution under strictly positive endowments."},5 {"id":"C4","text":"Markets clear and Walras' law holds at the equilibrium price (residuals 0).","results_keys":["excess_demand_good1","excess_demand_good2","walras_law_residual"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Floating-point zero."},6 {"id":"C5","text":"The recorded aggregate endowment of good 1 (14) is inconsistent with the individual endowments (sum 12); with 14 the market could not clear (excess demand -2).","results_keys":["data_issues","recorded_aggregate_endowment_good1","aggregate_endowment_good1","excess_demand_good1_if_recorded_aggregate_used"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Resolved in favour of primary data."}7]8