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, column '5 km', rows ATT / SE / % change (+ abstract)",9 "note": "Table 6 5 km column prints ATT -0.431** (SE 0.210), -35.0%, significant at 5%; abstract gives roughly 35% within 5 km from staggered DCR openings using Swiss hospital records."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 (+ abstract for N, preregistered RCT)",16 "note": "Table 2 ATT column prints $1,153 (95% CI [166, 2,141]), 1.47 pp and -1.99 weeks; abstract states N = 23,549 preregistered RCT and that the wage effect is annualised."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 coefficients by tau) and Table 3 row 'Clean-onset threshold-2', tau=4/tau=5 columns",23 "note": "Title and year (2024) do not match the extract (title 'Does Entry of Food-and-Drink Establishments Raise Local House Prices?...', submitted 2026), and the source reports a gradual rise from 0.005 at tau=0 to 0.037/0.034 at tau=4/5 with 'prices do not jump immediately', contradicting a 3.4-3.7% jump in the entry year with no later appreciation."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' (+ abstract for Japan's spot labour market)",30 "note": "Table 2 prints -0.388 (0.132) and -0.732 (0.091), and the abstract places the study in Japan's spot labor market; year 2025 equals the v1 submission year."31 },32 "R5": {33 "title_matches": true,34 "year_matches": true,35 "finding_supported": true,36 "locator": "arxiv-2510.03658v1 | Table 3, column (4) (preferred), rows Treatment / SE / % Change (+ Section 4.1 text)",37 "note": "Table 3 column (4), identified in Section 4.1 as the preferred specification, prints -0.0962 (0.0129) with % change -0.3685 (=-0.0962/0.261), i.e. 36.85%."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": "arxiv-2609.27732v1: the same 5 km CS-DR ATT (-0.431**) has SE (0.210) in Table 6 but (0.218) in Table A19; Table A19 note says 640 never-treated regions while Tables 6/A19 rows say 608.",49 "handling": "Cited SE 0.210 matches Table 6 (main results table) exactly, so it is counted as stated; the 5% significance conclusion holds under either SE (|t| = 2.05 or 1.98). Inconsistency reported, not resolved."50 },51 {52 "issue": "arxiv-2609.27732v1: abstract says fatal hospitalisations fall by 35%, Section 6.1 says ~30% (Table 7 5 km fatal ATT -0.354, exp-1 = -29.8%).",53 "handling": "Does not concern the cited finding (overall ATT); reported only."54 },55 {56 "issue": "arxiv-2606.14621v1: rendering defect 'p ¡ 0.001' (should read p < 0.001) in Section 3 text; Tables 2-3 were re-set by the extract editor.",57 "handling": "Does not affect cited values, which were read from Table 2 and cross-checked against Table 3 column 1 and the text."58 },59 {60 "issue": "arxiv-2603.03260v2: Table 3 header row garbled in the HTML rendering (column names restored by the extract editor's note).",61 "handling": "Used the editor-supplied column order; tau=4/5 values 0.037/0.034 agree with the Section 3.2 text."62 },63 {64 "issue": "arxiv-2505.04555v3: SE printed for the own-wage elasticity (0.091) is identical to the SE of 'Affected employment' (0.091), although the elasticity is the ratio affected employment / affected wages (-0.732) and affected wages has SE 0.171; possible duplication in the source table.",65 "handling": "Cannot be resolved from the extract; the cited SE equals the printed value so the finding is counted as stated, with this caveat."66 },67 {68 "issue": "arxiv-2510.03658v1: Section 4.1 attributes the 0.0855 / 18.79% estimate (also the abstract headline) to Table 2, which is omitted from the extract; abstract and Table 3 thus report different headline magnitudes for different outcome definitions.",69 "handling": "Cited finding refers explicitly to the Table 3 binary outcome in the preferred column, which is in the extract; the abstract figure was not used."70 }71 ],72 "n_input_rows": {73 "README.md": 17,74 "arxiv-2505.04555v3.txt": 66,75 "arxiv-2510.03658v1.txt": 91,76 "arxiv-2603.03260v2.txt": 107,77 "arxiv-2606.14621v1.txt": 58,78 "arxiv-2609.27732v1.txt": 134,79 "reference_list.json": 580 },81 "n_analysed": 5,82 "random_seed": null83}