1[2 {"id": "C1", "text": "Exactly one reference (R3) is unverifiable; R1, R2, R4 and R5 pass the title, year and finding checks (n_verified = 4).", "results_keys": ["unverifiable_references", "n_verified", "reference_checks"], "status": "supported", "caveat": "Finding checks are rule-based judgements coded explicitly in analysis.py."},3 {"id": "C2", "text": "R3 fails all three checks: its title and year (2024) differ from the extract (2026 submissions), and the source describes a gradual rise from about 0.5% at the entry year to 3.4-3.7% by years 4-5, not a jump in the entry year.", "results_keys": ["reference_checks"], "status": "supported", "caveat": "None."},4 {"id": "C3", "text": "R1's cited ATT -0.431 (SE 0.210, significant at 5%, -35%) matches Table 6 of the source.", "results_keys": ["reference_checks", "data_issues"], "status": "supported", "caveat": "Table A19 prints SE 0.218 for the same estimate; the 5% significance holds under either SE."},5 {"id": "C4", "text": "R4's cited elasticities -0.388 (0.132) and -0.732 (0.091) are printed in Table 2 of the extract, and -0.732 equals affected employment / affected wages.", "results_keys": ["reference_checks", "data_issues"], "status": "supported", "caveat": "The SE 0.091 duplicates the affected-employment SE and may be a source error."},6 {"id": "C5", "text": "R2's and R5's cited magnitudes and uncertainty statements match Table 2 (RESEA) and Table 3 column (4) (Benin) exactly.", "results_keys": ["reference_checks"], "status": "supported", "caveat": "R5's 36.85% is the printed value; recomputation from rounded cells gives 36.86%."}7]8