1{2 "task_id": "F4-conf-03",3 "harmonised": {4 "E1": {5 "value": -35.01,6 "unit": "percent of the counterfactual hospitalisation rate",7 "transformation": "100*(exp(b)-1) with b = -0.431 (printed '-0.431**') = 100*(exp(-0.431)-1) = -35.0141 %",8 "harmonisable": true,9 "missing_quantity": null,10 "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 6 | row 'ATT' (line 36) | column '5 km' (value -0.431**); cross-check: row '% change', column '5 km' prints -35.0%"11 },12 "E2": {13 "value": 1.96,14 "unit": "percent of the control-group mean reemployment rate",15 "transformation": "100*Delta/p with Delta = 1.47 pp (ATE) and p = 75.0% (control mean) = 100*1.47/75.0 = 1.9600 %",16 "harmonisable": true,17 "missing_quantity": null,18 "locator": "arxiv-2606.14621v1 | Table 2 | row 'Reemployment' (line 29) | columns 'Average treatment effect estimate' (1.47 pp) and 'Control' (75.0%)"19 },20 "E3": {21 "value": -1.824,22 "unit": "percent change in employment",23 "transformation": "100*eta*g with eta = -0.388 and g = 0.047 (proportional MW change as printed) = 100*(-0.388)*(0.047) = -1.8236 %",24 "harmonisable": true,25 "missing_quantity": null,26 "locator": "arxiv-2505.04555v3 | Table 2 | row 'Employment elasticity w.r.t MW' (line 50), column 'Estimate (SE)' (-0.388); row '% MW changes' (line 60), column 'Estimate (SE)' (0.047)"27 },28 "E4": {29 "value": null,30 "unit": "hospitalisations per 100,000 inhabitants per year",31 "transformation": "Would require Delta = Y0*(exp(b)-1) with b = -0.354 (printed '-0.354**'); the relative change 100*(exp(-0.354)-1) = -29.81 % is computable, but the counterfactual/baseline level Y0 is not printed",32 "harmonisable": false,33 "missing_quantity": "baseline (pre-opening or counterfactual) level of the fatal drug-related hospitalisation rate per 100,000 inhabitants per year in the 5 km treated regions (e.g. treated-group pre-treatment mean); the extract prints only log-point ATTs and no outcome means",34 "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 7 | row 'Drug-related (fatal)' (line 86) | column '5 km' (value -0.354**)"35 },36 "E5": {37 "value": -9.62,38 "unit": "percentage points",39 "transformation": "100*beta with beta = -0.0962 (printed '-0.0962', 0-1 probability scale) = -9.62 pp",40 "harmonisable": true,41 "missing_quantity": null,42 "locator": "arxiv-2510.03658v1 | Table 3 | row 'Treatment' (line 49) | column '(4)' (value -0.0962)"43 }44 },45 "n_harmonised": 4,46 "n_not_harmonisable": 1,47 "feasibility": "complete",48 "feasibility_reason": null,49 "data_issues": [50 {51 "issue": "DCR extract: the same 5 km CS-DR ATT (-0.431) carries SE (0.210) in Table 6 but (0.218) in Table A19.",52 "handling": "Point estimate identical in both tables; E1 uses Table 6 as specified. SEs not used (no uncertainty propagation)."53 },54 {55 "issue": "DCR extract: Tables 6/7 and A19 body report 608 control regions, while the A19 note says 640 never-treated comparison regions.",56 "handling": "Recorded only; does not affect any harmonised value."57 },58 {59 "issue": "DCR extract: abstract says fatal hospitalisations 'fall by 35%', but Table 7 5 km ATT -0.354 implies -29.8% (Section 6.1 says ~30%).",60 "handling": "Table 7 value used for E4; abstract figure not used. E4 is in any case not harmonisable to an absolute change."61 },62 {63 "issue": "DCR extract Table A19: printed '% change' differs by 0.1 from 100*(exp(b)-1) for: Synthetic DiD: b=-0.362 implies -30.4% vs printed -30.3%; Stacked DiD: b=-0.149 implies -13.8% vs printed -13.9%",64 "handling": "Attributed to rounding of the printed coefficients; no effect on E1 (5 km CS-DR value matches -35.0%)."65 },66 {67 "issue": "DCR extract: no level (mean or baseline) of any hospitalisation rate is printed.",68 "handling": "E4 (absolute change per 100,000) declared not harmonisable; missing quantity named."69 },70 {71 "issue": "Minimum-wage extract: Table 2 note says 'about 4% minimum wage increase' while the row '% MW changes' prints 0.047 (4.7%).",72 "handling": "Used the table row value 0.047 as the target definition instructs; with 4% the result would be about -1.55% (not reported as the estimate)."73 },74 {75 "issue": "RESEA extract: the control-group mean (75.0%) is an unadjusted aggregate mean, whereas the ATE (1.47 pp) adjusts for randomisation week; the aggregate control mean is only an approximation of the counterfactual level for the treated.",76 "handling": "Used the printed control mean as the target definition specifies ('percent of the control-group mean'); flagged as approximate."77 },78 {79 "issue": "Benin extract: abstract and Section 4.1 headline (0.0855, 18.79%, mean 0.455) refer to Table 2, which is not in the extract; footnote markers are rendered inline ('percent^9^9 9').",80 "handling": "E5 uses Table 3 column (4) (-0.0962) as specified; Table 3 '% Change' (-0.3685) is consistent with -0.0962/0.261."81 }82 ],83 "n_input_rows": {84 "effects.json": 5,85 "README.md": 16,86 "arxiv-2505.04555v3.txt": 66,87 "arxiv-2510.03658v1.txt": 91,88 "arxiv-2606.14621v1.txt": 58,89 "arxiv-2609.27732v1.txt": 13490 },91 "n_analysed": 5,92 "random_seed": null,93 "baseline_printed_conversions": {94 "E1_table6_pct_change_row_5km": -35.0,95 "E5_table3_pct_change_row_col4": -0.368596 },97 "internal_checks": {98 "E1_matches_printed_pct_change_row": true,99 "E4_no_outcome_level_printed": true,100 "E5_pct_change_row_consistent": true101 }102}