1{2 "harmonised": {3 "E1": {4 "value": -35.01,5 "unit": "percent change in the drug-related hospitalisation rate (relative to counterfactual)",6 "transformation": "100*(exp(b)-1) with b = -0.431 (printed '-0.431**') -> 100*(exp(-0.431)-1) = -35.0141%; matches the printed '% change' row (-35.0%). Exact under the log-point convention.",7 "harmonisable": true,8 "missing_quantity": null,9 "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 6 | row 'ATT' (line 36) | column '5 km' ; cross-check: Table 6 | row '% change' | column '5 km'"10 },11 "E2": {12 "value": 1.96,13 "unit": "percent change in the reemployment probability (relative to control-group mean)",14 "transformation": "100*Delta/p with Delta = 1.47 pp (ATE) and p = 75.0% (control mean) -> 100*1.47/75.0 = 1.9600%",15 "harmonisable": true,16 "missing_quantity": null,17 "locator": "arxiv-2606.14621v1 | Table 2 | row 'Reemployment' (line 29) | column 'Average treatment effect estimate' (1.47 pp) and column 'Control' (75.0%)"18 },19 "E3": {20 "value": -1.82,21 "unit": "percent change in employment (for the observed minimum-wage increase)",22 "transformation": "100*eta*g with eta = -0.388 and g = 0.047 (proportional MW change printed in the same table) -> 100*(-0.388)*0.047 = -1.8236%. Linear (first-order) approximation; exact only if the elasticity is interpreted as a ratio of proportional changes.",23 "harmonisable": true,24 "missing_quantity": null,25 "locator": "arxiv-2505.04555v3 | Table 2 | row 'Employment elasticity w.r.t MW' (line 50) | column 'Estimate (SE)' ; Table 2 | row '% MW changes' (line 60) | column 'Estimate (SE)'"26 },27 "E4": {28 "value": null,29 "unit": "hospitalisations per 100,000 inhabitants per year (absolute change)",30 "transformation": "Would require Delta_abs = Y0*(exp(b)-1) with b = -0.354 (printed '-0.354**'); only the relative change 100*(exp(-0.354)-1) = -29.81% can be computed from the extract. Y0 is not printed, so the target cannot be reached.",31 "harmonisable": false,32 "missing_quantity": "baseline (counterfactual / pre-treatment mean) level of the fatal drug-related hospitalisation rate per 100,000 inhabitants per year for the treated 5 km regions (not printed anywhere in the extract; also the time unit of the rate is not stated)",33 "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 7 | row 'Drug-related (fatal)' (line 86) | column '5 km'"34 },35 "E5": {36 "value": -9.62,37 "unit": "percentage points (change in probability of infant death or stillbirth)",38 "transformation": "100*b with b = -0.0962 (0-1 probability scale) -> -9.62 pp. Exact rescaling.",39 "harmonisable": true,40 "missing_quantity": null,41 "locator": "arxiv-2510.03658v1 | Table 3 | row 'Treatment' (line 49) | column '(4)'"42 }43 },44 "n_harmonised": 4,45 "n_not_harmonisable": 1,46 "task_id": "F4-conf-03",47 "feasibility": "complete",48 "feasibility_reason": null,49 "data_issues": [50 {51 "issue": "arxiv-2609.27732v1: the abstract states fatal drug-related hospitalisations 'fall by 35%', but Table 7 (5 km) prints -0.354 log points, i.e. 100*(exp(-0.354)-1) = -29.8%; Section 6.1 says 'approximately 30%'. The 35% figure matches the overall outcome (Table 6), not the fatal sub-outcome.",52 "handling": "Used the Table 7 coefficient as specified in effects.json; flagged the abstract figure as internally inconsistent. Does not affect E4 (not harmonisable anyway)."53 },54 {55 "issue": "arxiv-2609.27732v1: the same CS-DR 5 km ATT (-0.431) has SE (0.210) in Table 6 but (0.218) in Table A19; the A19 note states 640 never-treated comparison regions while its table body and Table 6 state 608.",56 "handling": "Point estimates agree, so E1 is unaffected; no uncertainty propagation is required. Recorded only."57 },58 {59 "issue": "arxiv-2505.04555v3: Table 2 note describes the 2023 increase as 'about 4%' while the table row '% MW changes' prints 0.047 (4.7%).",60 "handling": "Used the printed table value 0.047, as instructed by the target definition ('as printed in the same table'). With the note's 'about 4%' (g = 0.04) the result would be -1.55 percent; reported as sensitivity only."61 },62 {63 "issue": "arxiv-2505.04555v3: Table 2 rows are on different scales (e.g. 'Missing jobs below new MW' -0.03 printed with two decimals); the employment elasticity is approximately (missing+excess)/(MW change) = -0.383, consistent with -0.388 up to rounding.",64 "handling": "Consistency check only; no change."65 },66 {67 "issue": "arxiv-2510.03658v1: the abstract/Section 4.1 headline (-0.0855, mean 0.455, '18.79 percentage change') refers to a Table 2 not included in the extract; it is also labelled inconsistently ('percentage change' vs a relative change). Table 3 col (4) relative change printed as -0.3685 vs -0.0962/0.261 = -0.3686 (rounding of the printed mean).",68 "handling": "Used Table 3 col (4) as specified; the Table 2 numbers were not used."69 },70 {71 "issue": "data/README.md mentions a re-set 'London Table 3 header', but no extract in this task concerns a London study (apparent copy-over from another task's README).",72 "handling": "Ignored; no numbers depend on it."73 },74 {75 "issue": "arxiv-2606.14621v1: the Table 2 'Control' mean (75.0%) is the raw aggregate control-group mean, not a block(week)-adjusted counterfactual level; the authors stress that raw group comparisons are biased by week of randomisation.",76 "handling": "Used 75.0% because the target definition explicitly asks for percent of the control-group mean; noted that a block-adjusted counterfactual mean is not printed."77 }78 ],79 "n_input_rows": {80 "effects.json": 5,81 "README.md": 16,82 "arxiv-2505.04555v3.txt": 66,83 "arxiv-2510.03658v1.txt": 91,84 "arxiv-2606.14621v1.txt": 58,85 "arxiv-2609.27732v1.txt": 13486 },87 "n_analysed": 5,88 "random_seed": null89}