1# F4-conf-03 — Harmonising effect sizes reported under incompatible definitions23## Question4Re-express five printed treatment effects from four arXiv extracts on the target definition stated for each item in `data/effects.json`, using only quantities printed in the cited extract and an explicit transformation; where the target is unreachable, state the missing quantity.56## Data and exclusions7Inputs: `data/effects.json` (5 items) and four source extracts (line counts in `n_input_rows`; SHA-256 hashes match `data/README.md`, see `out/state/data_audit.md`). All 5 items were assessed (`n_analysed` = 5); none excluded (`out/exclusions.csv`). Source anomalies are listed in `data_issues` (abstract vs Section 6.1 vs Table 7 inconsistency for fatal hospitalisations in the DCR paper; differing SE 0.210/0.218 and 608/640 control-region counts; "about 4%" note vs printed 0.047 MW change; Benin text citing an absent "table 2" and calling relative changes "percentage changes"; RESEA abstract rounding 1.47 pp to 1.5 pp). None changes a harmonised value.89## Method10Task conventions applied (`harmonised.*.transformation`): log-point b → 100·(exp(b)−1) %; pp effect Δ with control level p → 100·Δ/p %; elasticity η with proportional treatment change g → 100·η·g %; LPM coefficient on 0–1 scale → ×100 pp. `out/analysis.py` locates each printed input by a unique regex match in the extract, prints that source line, and computes the value. No randomness (`random_seed` = null).1112## Results13- **E1** (DCR overall ATT, 5 km, Table 6, b = −0.431): 100·(exp(−0.431)−1) = **−35.01 %** of the counterfactual rate (`harmonised.E1.value`); matches the printed "% change" −35.0%.14- **E2** (RESEA reemployment ATE 1.47 pp; control mean 75.0%, Table 2): 100·1.47/75.0 = **+1.96 %** of the control-group mean (`harmonised.E2.value`).15- **E3** (MW employment elasticity −0.388; "% MW changes" 0.047, Table 2): 100·(−0.388)·0.047 = **−1.82 %** employment (`harmonised.E3.value`, −1.8236).16- **E4** (DCR fatal hospitalisations ATT, 5 km, Table 7, b = −0.354): **not harmonisable** (`harmonised.E4.harmonisable` = false, `harmonised.E4.value` = null). An absolute change per 100,000 per year equals R0·(exp(−0.354)−1) = −0.298·R0, but the baseline/counterfactual fatal hospitalisation rate R0 is not printed in the extract (`harmonised.E4.missing_quantity`).17- **E5** (Benin LPM, Table 3, column (4), β = −0.0962): **−9.62 percentage points** (`harmonised.E5.value`).1819Summary: `n_harmonised` = 4, `n_not_harmonisable` = 1, `feasibility` = "complete" (every item has a value or a justified impossibility statement).2021## Uncertainty22No standard errors or confidence intervals were propagated; only point estimates are harmonised. Exact conversions: E5 (pure rescaling) and E1 (exact mapping of a log-point coefficient to a percent change under the convention, though the ATT of a log outcome maps only approximately to the percent change in the average rate). Approximate: E2 (ratio uses the raw aggregate control mean while the ATE is block-adjusted; the ratio estimator is itself only approximately unbiased); E3 (linear elasticity extrapolation 100·η·g is a first-order approximation; the note's "about 4%" vs the printed 0.047 adds ambiguity — with 0.04 the value would be −1.55%, see `data_issues`). E4 has no value.2324## Limitations and open issues25- E4 cannot be computed from the extract: it requires the baseline level of the fatal drug-related hospitalisation rate per 100,000 inhabitants per year for the treated 5 km regions (`harmonised.E4.missing_quantity`). No external or remembered value was substituted.26- Source internal inconsistencies are recorded, not resolved (`data_issues`); in particular the DCR abstract's "35%" fall in fatal hospitalisations is not supported by Table 7 (−29.8% implied), which agrees with Section 6.1 ("approximately 30%").27- E3 depends on reading 0.047 as the proportional MW change, as printed in the same table per the target definition.28