1{2 "validation_errors": [],3 "repairs": [4 "dropped figures.convention_notes_absent"5 ],6 "doc_id": "jof_12685",7 "ontology_version": "1.0",8 "prompt_version": "1.0",9 "model": "claude-opus-5-5",10 "effort": "medium",11 "annotated_at": "2026-11-03T23:26:28+00:00",12 "source_sha256": "334f7d010f7f5af26c2405d2d81140f1c08a24989b39e6015f3a6937a71b35c5",13 "parser": "pymupdf-jof-heuristics-1.3",14 "payload_chars": 25219,15 "usage": {16 "input": 8311,17 "output": 2007,18 "cache_read": 0,19 "cache_write": 396820 },21 "cost_usd": 0.093224,22 "request_id": "req_011CggrofhQR8XspmamsZo1N",23 "annotation": {24 "genre": "empirical",25 "subfield": "behavioral_finance",26 "subfield_secondary": "asset_pricing",27 "primary_method": "reduced_form_regression",28 "identification": {29 "estimand": "Effect of the previous trading day's salient (large-firm value-weighted) earnings surprise on the return reaction to a firm's own earnings announcement, holding its own surprise constant",30 "strategy": "Regressions of announcement returns on prior-day salient surprise, exploiting earnings dates scheduled weeks in advance as quasi-exogenous ordering; timing tests, unconditional return predictability, reversals and a trading strategy rule out information transmission",31 "key_assumptions": [32 "Announcement dates are set in advance and are uncorrelated with the fundamentals of the firm relative to prior-day surprises",33 "Prior-day surprises do not carry information relevant to the next-day announcer that rational markets would price",34 "Absence of strategic timing of announcements"35 ],36 "threats_addressed": [37 "information transmission from earlier announcements",38 "expectational errors versus perceptual errors",39 "risk changes, trading frictions and capital constraints",40 "strategic timing of earnings announcements",41 "bias or staleness of analyst forecasts"42 ],43 "causal_language_strength": 4,44 "uses_causal_claim": true45 },46 "abstract_moves": {47 "question": {48 "present": true,49 "sentence_index": 050 },51 "gap": {52 "present": true,53 "sentence_index": 154 },55 "method": {56 "present": true,57 "sentence_index": 358 },59 "results": {60 "present": true,61 "sentence_index": 262 },63 "magnitude": {64 "present": false,65 "sentence_index": -166 },67 "contribution": {68 "present": true,69 "sentence_index": 170 }71 },72 "introduction": {73 "moves": [74 {75 "paragraph_index": 0,76 "move": "other"77 },78 {79 "paragraph_index": 7,80 "move": "motivation"81 },82 {83 "paragraph_index": 8,84 "move": "mechanism_or_theory_sketch"85 },86 {87 "paragraph_index": 9,88 "move": "preview_of_results"89 },90 {91 "paragraph_index": 10,92 "move": "preview_of_results"93 },94 {95 "paragraph_index": 11,96 "move": "identification_defense"97 },98 {99 "paragraph_index": 12,100 "move": "preview_of_results"101 },102 {103 "paragraph_index": 13,104 "move": "contribution_statement"105 },106 {107 "paragraph_index": 13,108 "move": "related_literature_positioning"109 }110 ],111 "contribution_paragraph_index": 13,112 "contribution_types": [113 "new_evidence"114 ],115 "roadmap_present": false,116 "literature_positioning_location": "inside_introduction"117 },118 "section_roles": [119 {120 "idx": 0,121 "role": "introduction"122 },123 {124 "idx": 1,125 "role": "data"126 },127 {128 "idx": 2,129 "role": "results"130 },131 {132 "idx": 3,133 "role": "robustness"134 },135 {136 "idx": 4,137 "role": "robustness"138 },139 {140 "idx": 5,141 "role": "results"142 },143 {144 "idx": 6,145 "role": "conclusion"146 }147 ],148 "results_presentation": {149 "economic_significance_discussed": true,150 "statistical_significance_language": "stars_and_tstats",151 "magnitude_statements_in_intro": true152 },153 "robustness": {154 "location": "main_text_section",155 "types": [156 "alternative_measure",157 "subsample",158 "alternative_specification",159 "falsification",160 "placebo"161 ]162 },163 "tables": {164 "convention_notes": "Regression tables report standard errors in parentheses, clustered by date, with stars marking 10/5/1% significance. Notes define variable construction and return windows and refer back to Table II for definitions.",165 "units_stated_in_notes": true,166 "standard_errors_description": "clustered"167 },168 "figures": {169 "uncertainty_shown": "unclear"170 },171 "conclusion": {172 "bounded_claims": true,173 "policy_implications": true,174 "open_questions": true,175 "restates_contribution": true176 },177 "hedging": {178 "level": "moderate",179 "typical_devices": [180 "consistent with",181 "suggestive evidence",182 "potentially",183 "likely",184 "we leave for future work"185 ]186 },187 "claim_evidence": [188 {189 "claim": "Return reaction to today's announcement falls as the prior-day salient surprise rises, controlling for own surprise",190 "evidence_type": "figure",191 "evidence_ref": "Figure 1; Table II"192 },193 {194 "claim": "The effect is a level shift rather than an interaction with own surprise",195 "evidence_type": "table",196 "evidence_ref": "Table III; Figure 3"197 },198 {199 "claim": "Distortions reverse over roughly 50 trading days",200 "evidence_type": "table",201 "evidence_ref": "Table IV"202 },203 {204 "claim": "Long-short strategy on prior-day surprise earns about 15% per year among large firms",205 "evidence_type": "table",206 "evidence_ref": "Table V; Figure 4"207 },208 {209 "claim": "Prior-day surprise does not predict next-day announcer surprises, against information transmission",210 "evidence_type": "table",211 "evidence_ref": "Table VI"212 },213 {214 "claim": "Results are not driven by risk, trading frictions or strategic timing",215 "evidence_type": "table",216 "evidence_ref": "Tables VII, VIII"217 },218 {219 "claim": "Effect is concentrated at t-1 and holds within the day; heterogeneity exists by size and industry",220 "evidence_type": "table",221 "evidence_ref": "Tables X, XI, XII"222 }223 ],224 "structural_summary": "Opens with a classical epigraph and lab or popular examples of contrast effects, then sketches the prediction for earnings announcements. It previews the main figure and its magnitude and defends against information-transmission explanations through timing, reversals and a trading strategy. Supplementary timing and heterogeneity results follow, then contributions positioned against limited-attention and expectational-error literatures. The body proceeds through data, baseline results, a long section on alternative explanations, robustness, further exploration and a conclusion with broader implications.",225 "writing_profile_keywords": [226 "behavioral bias in markets",227 "lab-to-field",228 "alternative explanations section",229 "trading strategy",230 "earnings announcements",231 "epigraph opening"232 ],233 "confidence": 0.8,234 "notes": "Introduction paragraphs 0-6 are fragments of the epigraph and are treated as a single 'other' move. Paragraph 7 is truncated. No explicit roadmap is visible in the excerpts."235 },236 "deterministic_checks": {237 "roadmap_regex": false,238 "contribution_regex_in_intro": true,239 "magnitude_in_abstract": false,240 "abstract_n_sentences": 5,241 "intro_n_paragraphs": 14,242 "intro_n_words": 1315,243 "causal_words_in_abstract": 0,244 "hedge_words_in_abstract": 0,245 "stars_mentioned": true,246 "clustered_se_mentioned": true,247 "internet_appendix_mentioned": false,248 "section_roles_rule": {249 "0": "introduction",250 "1": "data",251 "2": "results",252 "3": "robustness",253 "4": "robustness",254 "5": "other",255 "6": "conclusion"256 }257 },258 "schema_valid": true,259 "code_version": "87c73cd-dirty"260}