Data audit (P1)
| file | SHA-256 | lines (wc -l) | matches README/bundle |
|---|---|---|---|
| data/README.md | c6d37572...792b2 | 17 | bundle yes |
| data/reference_list.json | 7ab6cbf2...5da | 5 top-level items (list of 5 objects: id, entry, cited_for, source_file) | bundle yes |
| sources/arxiv-2609.27732v1.txt | ee2d444d...a8b | 134 | yes |
| sources/arxiv-2606.14621v1.txt | 27c463c0...0238 | 58 | yes |
| sources/arxiv-2603.03260v2.txt | 3cb9a4f3...551587 | 107 | yes |
| sources/arxiv-2505.04555v3.txt | b1731a9b...95c1 | 66 | yes |
| sources/arxiv-2510.03658v1.txt | f8782937...127 | 91 | yes |
| (full hashes recomputed and printed by out/analysis.py) |
Schema: each extract = provenance header (Title, Authors, Bibliographic record, Retrieved, License, contents, omitted, rendering note) + "=====" separator + body. Tables: one row per line, " | " separators, SE on following line. No duplicates; no missing references; every source_file exists. Dates: submissions 7 May 2025 – 23 Sep 2026, all before retrieval 2026-10-30.
Anomalies found (recorded in results.json data_issues):
- 2609.27732: Table A19 CS-DR column prints SE (0.218) for the same 5 km CS-DR ATT -0.431 whose SE is (0.210) in Table 6.
- 2609.27732: Table A19 note says 640 never-treated comparison regions; Tables 6/A19 body say 608.
- 2609.27732: Section 6.1 says fatal hospitalisations fall ~30% and narcotics rise 47% at 5 km; abstract says fatal outcomes fall 35% and narcotics rise "by a comparable amount".
- 2505.04555: Table 2 SE for own-wage elasticity (0.091) is identical to the SE of "Affected employment"; a ratio estimator would normally have a different SE — possible transcription duplication in the original, unverifiable.
- 2510.03658: abstract/§4.1 headline 0.0855 (18.79%, mean 0.455, Table 2 not reproduced) differs from Table 3 col (4) -0.0962 (36.85%, mean 0.261); different tables/outcomes, not a contradiction. Footnote markers rendered as "^9^9 9" etc.
- 2603.03260: Table 3 header garbled (editor's note gives column order). None of the inputs violates the information-availability rules; no exclusions applied.