1{2 "task_id": "F4-conf-04",3 "reference_checks": {4 "R1": {5 "title_matches": true,6 "year_matches": true,7 "finding_supported": true,8 "locator": "arxiv-2609.27732v1 | Table 6, row ATT / % change, column 5 km (also abstract and Section 6 text)",9 "note": "Table 6 (5 km) prints ATT -0.431** with SE (0.210) and -35.0%, and the abstract/Section 6 describe a staggered DiD on Swiss individual-level hospital records; all cited elements match."10 },11 "R2": {12 "title_matches": true,13 "year_matches": true,14 "finding_supported": true,15 "locator": "arxiv-2606.14621v1 | Table 2, column 'Average treatment effect estimate', rows Wage / Reemployment / Weeks on UI (N and design from abstract)",16 "note": "Table 2 ATE column prints $1,153 (95% CI [166, 2,141]), 1.47 pp and -1.99 weeks, and the abstract states a preregistered RCT with N = 23,549; all elements match."17 },18 "R3": {19 "title_matches": false,20 "year_matches": false,21 "finding_supported": false,22 "locator": "arxiv-2603.03260v2 | Section 3.2 'Headline dynamic pattern' (stacked coefficient 0.005 at tau=0) and Table 3, row Clean-onset threshold-2, columns tau=4/tau=5",23 "note": "The source reports only ~0.5% (0.005) in the event year rising gradually to 3.4-3.7% by years four-five and states prices 'do not jump immediately', contradicting the cited jump in the entry year with no later appreciation; the entry's title and year (2024 vs 2026 submissions) also disagree with the source."24 },25 "R4": {26 "title_matches": true,27 "year_matches": true,28 "finding_supported": true,29 "locator": "arxiv-2505.04555v3 | Appendix A.1, Table 2, rows 'Employment elasticity w.r.t MW' and 'Emp. elasticity w.r.t affected wage' (column Estimate (SE))",30 "note": "Table 2 prints -0.388 (0.132) and -0.732 (0.091), the A.1 text calls the latter the own-wage employment elasticity, and the abstract sets the study in Japan's spot labor market; all elements match."31 },32 "R5": {33 "title_matches": true,34 "year_matches": true,35 "finding_supported": true,36 "locator": "arxiv-2510.03658v1 | Table 3, column (4), rows Treatment / % Change (preferred specification per Section 4.1)",37 "note": "Table 3 column (4), the stated preferred specification, prints Treatment -0.0962 (0.0129) and % Change -0.3685 (36.85%), matching the citation; the abstract's headline 0.0855 (18.79%) refers to a different outcome/table (Table 2, not in the extract)."38 }39 },40 "unverifiable_references": [41 "R3"42 ],43 "n_verified": 4,44 "feasibility": "complete",45 "feasibility_reason": null,46 "data_issues": [47 {48 "issue": "Armendariz extract: the CS-DR 5 km ATT -0.431 has SE (0.210) in Table 6 but SE (0.218) in Table A19 for the same estimator/buffer/window; Table A19 note also says 640 never-treated regions while Tables 6/A19 rows say 608 control regions.",49 "handling": "Finding check for R1 decided on Table 6 (the main table, which the citation quotes); significance at 5% holds under either SE (|t|=2.05 vs 1.98). Discrepancy reported, not resolved."50 },51 {52 "issue": "Armendariz extract: abstract says fatal outcomes 'fall by 35%', but Table 7 (5 km) prints -0.354** (exp-1 = -0.298) and Section 6.1 says 'approximately 30%'; Table 7 note lists four sub-outcomes while five are reported; the paragraph discussing Table A19 announced in the header is cut off after the table note.",53 "handling": "Not relevant to the R1 attributed finding (overall 5 km ATT); recorded only."54 },55 {56 "issue": "Li et al. extract: Tables 2 and 3 were re-set by the extract editor (HTML split rows); Section 3 text contains a rendering artefact 'p ¡ 0.001' for p < 0.001.",57 "handling": "Used the re-set values as verbatim per the editorial note; artefact read as p < 0.001; no effect on checks."58 },59 {60 "issue": "Liu & Zhao extract: Table 3 header row is garbled in the HTML rendering (column names reconstructed by extract editor).",61 "handling": "Used the editor's column order (… | tau=4 | tau=5); the tau=4/tau=5 values 0.037/0.034 agree with the Section 3.2 text."62 },63 {64 "issue": "Kanayama et al. extract: Table 2 rendered with SEs on separate blank-label lines separated by empty lines; the entry year 2025 matches v1 (7 May 2025) while the extract is v3 (16 Mar 2026).",65 "handling": "Each SE assigned to the coefficient row immediately preceding it; year accepted per the first-submission rule."66 },67 {68 "issue": "Tossou extract: -0.0962/0.261 = -0.3686, while Table 3 prints % Change -0.3685 (consistent if the mean is rounded to 3 decimals); footnotes are rendered inline as '^9^9 9' etc.; the abstract headline (0.0855, 18.79%) comes from Table 2, which is omitted.",69 "handling": "Treated the 0.0001 gap as rounding of the printed mean; footnote artefacts ignored; R5 checked against Table 3 column (4), the outcome the citation names."70 }71 ],72 "n_input_rows": {73 "reference_list.json": 5,74 "README.md": 17,75 "arxiv-2609.27732v1.txt": 134,76 "arxiv-2606.14621v1.txt": 58,77 "arxiv-2603.03260v2.txt": 107,78 "arxiv-2505.04555v3.txt": 66,79 "arxiv-2510.03658v1.txt": 9180 },81 "n_analysed": 5,82 "random_seed": null83}