1[2 {"id":"C1","text":"The closed-form equilibrium relative price p1/p2 is 0.875.","results_keys":["price_ratio_p1_over_p2"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Uses aggregate endowment of good 1 = 12 from individual endowments, not the summary value 14."},3 {"id":"C2","text":"Independent brentq root-finding of z1(p) gives the same price (diff ~1e-16).","results_keys":["price_ratio_numerical","abs_diff_closed_vs_numerical"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Validation is for this single parameter set."},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 Cobb-Douglas demands."},5 {"id":"C4","text":"Both markets clear and Walras' law holds at the reported price (residuals 0).","results_keys":["excess_demand_good1","excess_demand_good2","walras_law_residual"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Up to floating-point precision."},6 {"id":"C5","text":"The summary-sheet aggregate endowment of good 1 (14) is inconsistent with the individual endowments (12); the latter were used.","results_keys":["data_issues","aggregate_endowment_good1","summary_sheet_aggregate_endowment_good1","sensitivity_excess_demand_good1_vs_summary_E1"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Which source is correct cannot be verified from the data."}7]8