| L-01 |
No price history in the source (current price per listing only) |
no temporal price analysis; H5 is cross-sectional |
declared ex ante (D-005); prospective collection plan in the paper |
| L-02 |
Listings are posted offers, not sales; disappearance ≠ sale; sold-out listings remain published |
no demand, revenue or employment inference |
wording rule; availability flag reported |
| L-03 |
Merchant location ≠ product origin; origin class is a store-level prior |
H6 untestable; "production" never inferred |
D-004; descriptive certification contrast labelled as not H6 |
| L-04 |
229 live stores (71 692 listings, 19 % of the assortment sample) have no recoverable location, including the largest catalogues |
regional statistics describe located merchants only |
reported as "Inconnue"; excluded from inference; coverage audit |
| L-05 |
Region assignment combines three sources (municipality lookup, platform label, FSA centroid); rural FSA centroids are imprecise near borders |
some misassignment near borders (30 flagged conflicts) |
A-001; sensitivity with PIP-first and conflict-free samples |
| L-06 |
Rule-based category labels have 46 % precision against annotator consensus |
category-based statistics under rule labels are noisy |
A-002 classifier validated on a held-out audit; all category results under both labellings; confusion-reassignment robustness |
| L-07 |
Annotators are LLMs (two independent models) and adjudication was done by the research team, not by independent human coders |
label validity rests on inter-model agreement (95 %) and taxonomy definitions |
disclosed; disagreement files published |
| L-08 |
Discovery is a non-probability process favouring certified/association merchants; coverage per 1 000 businesses varies six-fold across regions |
regional comparisons confound economy and discovery |
representativeness audit; certification-source-only and no-Montréal variants |
| L-09 |
17 regions → very low power for H2 and H7-V3; ECI unstable at 17×20 |
H2 inconclusive; complexity not validated |
preregistered criteria; components only |
| L-10 |
Matching without GTIN; tier precision 0.98–1.00 among consensus pairs (lower bounds 0.90–0.92 counting non-consensus as failures) for A, B |
few false matches in H5 |
precision reported; comparable-variant restriction; sensitivity with C |
| L-11 |
Region effects in H5 identified only through groups spanning regions; one store = one region |
wide intervals; cannot separate region from store |
collinearity note; wild cluster bootstrap; stores per region reported |
| L-12 |
Connector caps (max 200 pages) truncate the largest catalogues; Wix/Ecwid coverage incomplete |
catalogue sizes of the largest stores under-measured |
noted; trimmed scheme T |
| L-13 |
Single snapshot; onboarding ended 2026-08-24; 10 weeks of listing dynamics |
H4 exploratory only |
temporal holdout; placebo |
| L-14 |
Power-law vs log-normal comparison uses a continuous log-normal on the discrete tail |
approximate model comparison |
stated; not a hypothesis |
| L-15 |
External covariates mix vintages (ISQ 2025/2024, Census 2021 on 2021 ER boundaries for Estrie/Montérégie) |
small concordance error for density |
ISQ columns used wherever available; manifest records vintages |
| L-16 |
H5 geographic joint test is dominated by one region/one reseller (Outaouais, 65 of 164 Wald points) and is sensitive to the bootstrap implementation |
no claim about regional price levels |
corrected bootstrap, LOO decomposition, status 'not supported' |
| L-17 |
Audit sample (500) was drawn before the mirror-domain rule: one listing belongs to a later-excluded sibling store; 92 % of audit stores also appear in the classifier training set (no merchant holdout) |
audit accuracy may be slightly optimistic for unseen merchants |
disclosed; labelled CSVs committed and hashed |