1{2 "verdict": "accept",3 "issues": [4 {5 "id": "R1",6 "severity": "minor",7 "location": "out/claims.json C6; out/report.md Uncertainty",8 "issue": "C6 says vintage choice changes 2014 growth rates 'by about 0.1 pp' but the evidence is a single month (2014-06, +0.093 pp). Recomputing all 12 mixed-vintage months gives differences from -0.119 to +0.127 pp, with the sign varying from month to month. The magnitude roughly holds, but one month does not show it and the direction is not uniform.",9 "suggested_fix": "Report the sensitivity for all 12 mixed-vintage months (range and mean difference), or limit the claim to 2014-06."10 },11 {12 "id": "R2",13 "severity": "minor",14 "location": "out/report.md Limitations",15 "issue": "The report points to out/state/data_audit.md to back the SHA-256 mismatch, but that file is not a required deliverable. I confirmed independently that the data-file hashes do not match the values in data/README.md, so the statement is correct. It just needs a self-contained basis.",16 "suggested_fix": "Put the computed hashes in data_issues in results.json, or quote them in the report."17 },18 {19 "id": "R3",20 "severity": "minor",21 "location": "out/report.md Uncertainty",22 "issue": "The overlap revisions (up to 0.455 index points) are listed in data_issues, but the report does not say how they affect the 2014-2026 sub-period mean. Only the single-month sensitivity is shown.",23 "suggested_fix": "Optionally add the 2014-2016 overlap growth computed from the old vintage as a sensitivity check."24 }25 ],26 "summary": "I re-ran analysis.py in a scratch copy and it reproduces results.json, analytic.csv and exclusions.csv byte for byte. An independent recomputation from the two vintage files matches every required number: 308/1 months, all means, the named months, and the max (2022-06) and min (2009-07). The code follows the most-recent-vintage rule (2026-10-28 values from 2014-01 on). It does not impute the missing 2025-10 level and does not fill it from the older vintage. It uses only data/, and reads the faulty assembled file for audit only. The audit's findings (wrong vintage used for 2014-01..2016-06, missing 2016-07, one-month shift from 2016-08) are documented. The exclusion ledger is arithmetically consistent and ends at n_analysed. Feasibility 'partial' is justified and honestly explained. The baseline mean for 2001-2013 is present. The remaining issues are minor."27}28