1[2 {"id":"C1","text":"The conventional OLS 95% interval does not attain nominal coverage in this design: estimated coverage 0.844, more than three binomial MC standard errors below 0.95.","results_keys":["coverage_conventional","conventional_ci_undercovers"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Specific to this fixed design, normal errors, R=2000, seed 20261030."},3 {"id":"C2","text":"The HC1 interval improves coverage (0.902) but still falls short of 95%.","results_keys":["coverage_hc1"],"status":"supported","caveat":"MC SE about 0.0067; HC2/HC3 not evaluated."},4 {"id":"C3","text":"The conventional SE understates sampling variability: mean se_conv 0.190 versus exact SD of the slope estimate 0.268.","results_keys":["mean_se_conventional","sd_beta_exact"],"status":"supported","caveat":"mean_se_conventional is a Monte Carlo estimate."},5 {"id":"C4","text":"The Monte Carlo SD of the slope estimate (0.2696) agrees with the analytical exact SD (0.2680).","results_keys":["sd_beta_mc","sd_beta_exact"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Difference is within MC error (~0.004)."}6]7