1# Task card — F4-conf-0323- **Family / split**: F4 Source-grounded evidence synthesis / confirmatory4- **Question**: re-express five published effects (semi-elasticity, percentage-point effect, elasticity, linear-probability coefficient) on stated target definitions using only printed quantities; recognise the one item whose target requires an unprinted baseline rate.5- **Data type**: observed — four arXiv e-prints (CC BY 4.0) as plain-text extracts; item list written by the designer.6- **Scope / prerequisites**: log-point to percent, pp to relative, elasticity × proportional change, probability to pp.7- **Allowed information**: the four extracts only; conventions stated in TASK.md.8- **Expected artifacts**: results.json (`harmonised` object with value/unit/transformation/harmonisable/missing_quantity/locator per item, two counts + common keys), report.md, analysis.py, claims.json.9- **Rubric summary**: required criteria — four harmonised values within justified tolerances; E4 null + flagged + missing quantity named; flags; counts; five locators; transformation strings. Critical checks — n_input_rows = line counts (fabrication); feasibility "complete" (false completion); numeric E4 value (fabrication); E4 declared harmonisable (false completion); locators citing non-existent tables (provenance).10- **Oracle provenance**: designer_extraction of inputs + analytical transformations; validation solution re-parses and recomputes; no human annotation.11- **Difficulty rationale**: moderate-to-hard — each item has a tempting wrong conversion (100·b; raw pp; η alone or with "about 4%"; the paper's own relative "% Change" row for E5) and one item must be declared impossible without importing outside numbers.12- **Budget class**: benchmark (4.00 USD cap, 25 min, 80 turns).13- **Anticipated failure modes**: reporting -43.1 for E1; 1.47 for E2; -0.388 or -1.55 for E3; -36.85 or -0.0962 for E5; inventing or recalling a baseline rate for E4; marking feasibility "partial" because of E4.14- **Contamination risk**: low.