1[2 {"id":"C1","text":"Exactly one reference, R3 (Liu & Zhao), is unverifiable; R1, R2, R4 and R5 pass all three checks (n_verified = 4).","results_keys":["unverifiable_references","n_verified","reference_checks"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Based only on the provided extracts."},3 {"id":"C2","text":"R3's entry title and year (2024) disagree with the source (different title; submissions in 2026), and the cited 'jump in the entry year with no further appreciation' contradicts the source's gradual rise from ~0.5% at tau=0 to 3.4-3.7% by years four-five.","results_keys":["reference_checks.R3"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Any one of the three failures is sufficient."},4 {"id":"C3","text":"R1's attributed ATT -0.431 (SE 0.210, significant at 5%, ~35%) is printed in Table 6 (5 km column).","results_keys":["reference_checks.R1"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Table A19 prints SE 0.218 for the same estimate; significance at 5% holds under either SE."},5 {"id":"C4","text":"R2's wage, reemployment and UI-duration effects, CI, N and RCT design match Table 2 and the abstract.","results_keys":["reference_checks.R2"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Tables were re-set by the extract editor; values stated as verbatim."},6 {"id":"C5","text":"R4's elasticities -0.388 (0.132) and -0.732 (0.091) match Appendix Table 2.","results_keys":["reference_checks.R4"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Entry year 2025 matches v1, not the v3 (2026) extract; accepted under the stated rule."},7 {"id":"C6","text":"R5's -0.0962 (0.0129) and 36.85% reduction match Table 3 column (4), the stated preferred specification.","results_keys":["reference_checks.R5"],"status":"supported","caveat":"-0.0962/0.261 = -0.3686 vs printed -0.3685 (rounding); abstract headline is a different estimate."}8]9