1[2 {"id":"C1","text":"The own model (rw_drift_yoy) has lower RMSE and MAE than all three baselines at h=1 and h=3.","results_keys":["rmse_model_h1","rmse_naive_h1","rmse_snaive_h1","rmse_ar1_h1","rmse_model_h3","rmse_naive_h3","rmse_snaive_h3","rmse_ar1_h3","mae_model_h1","mae_model_h3"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Only 10 origins in one short period."},3 {"id":"C2","text":"Relative to naive, the model reduces RMSE by about 45% at h=1 and 26% at h=3.","results_keys":["rel_improvement_rmse_h1","rel_improvement_rmse_h3"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Point estimates; sampling uncertainty is large."},4 {"id":"C3","text":"At h=1 the DM test rejects equal accuracy at 5% (model better); at h=3 it does not.","results_keys":["dm_stat_h1","dm_pvalue_h1","conclusion_code_h1","dm_stat_h3","dm_pvalue_h3","conclusion_code_h3"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Asymptotic DM without HLN correction on n=10 likely over-rejects; exact sign test p=0.109 at both horizons (dm_details) is not significant."},5 {"id":"C4","text":"The mean absolute revision between first-release and current YoY of the h=1 target months is about 0.55 pp, comparable to the model's h=1 RMSE.","results_keys":["mean_abs_revision_h1_targets","rmse_model_h1"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Current vintage includes a benchmark revision."},6 {"id":"C5","text":"AR(1) improves on naive by about 6% (h=1) and 16% (h=3) in RMSE, and seasonal naive is worst at h=1 but beats naive at h=3.","results_keys":["rmse_ar1_h1","rmse_ar1_h3","rmse_snaive_h1","rmse_snaive_h3","rmse_naive_h1","rmse_naive_h3"],"status":"supported","caveat":"10 origins."},7 {"id":"C6","text":"Publication delays: six origins (2025-10-31 to 2026-03-31) had a two-month delay, the last four a one-month delay.","results_keys":["real_time_design","data_issues"],"status":"supported","caveat":""}8]9