1{2 "validation_errors": [],3 "repairs": [],4 "doc_id": "jof_12835",5 "ontology_version": "1.0",6 "prompt_version": "1.0",7 "model": "claude-opus-5-5",8 "effort": "medium",9 "annotated_at": "2026-11-03T23:27:07+00:00",10 "source_sha256": "82d626ab449347878f92e774556359ef408100d9c56ef91da3c53c684dcfc7c1",11 "parser": "pymupdf-jof-heuristics-1.3",12 "payload_chars": 21871,13 "usage": {14 "input": 7359,15 "output": 2666,16 "cache_read": 3968,17 "cache_write": 018 },19 "cost_usd": 0.08355,20 "request_id": "req_011CggrrBzrjTiphppSbjAMY",21 "annotation": {22 "genre": "empirical",23 "subfield": "behavioral_finance",24 "subfield_secondary": "household_finance",25 "primary_method": "survey_or_experiment",26 "identification": {27 "estimand": "Difference in subjective return expectations when the question format (forecast returns vs. prices) and the chart format (return bar charts vs. price line charts) are varied.",28 "strategy": "Randomized 2x2 between-subject experimental design across three studies: lab subjects, lab subjects with incentives and added explanation tests, and finance professionals with real-world information. Treatment effects are estimated with panel regressions including demographic controls.",29 "key_assumptions": [30 "Random assignment to task and stimulus treatments",31 "Format changes are superficial and leave the information content unchanged",32 "Elicited forecasts reflect subjects' true expectations"33 ],34 "threats_addressed": [35 "Confounding of chart format with question format, separated by the 2x2 design",36 "Lack of incentives, addressed with performance-based incentives in Study 2",37 "Lack of expertise or real-world information, addressed with professionals in Study 3",38 "Alternative explanations such as dividend yield, risk premium and simple heuristics",39 "Price level of the charts"40 ],41 "causal_language_strength": 4,42 "uses_causal_claim": true43 },44 "abstract_moves": {45 "question": {46 "present": true,47 "sentence_index": 148 },49 "gap": {50 "present": false,51 "sentence_index": -152 },53 "method": {54 "present": true,55 "sentence_index": 256 },57 "results": {58 "present": true,59 "sentence_index": 360 },61 "magnitude": {62 "present": false,63 "sentence_index": -164 },65 "contribution": {66 "present": false,67 "sentence_index": -168 }69 },70 "introduction": {71 "moves": [72 {73 "paragraph_index": 0,74 "move": "motivation"75 },76 {77 "paragraph_index": 0,78 "move": "tension_or_puzzle"79 },80 {81 "paragraph_index": 0,82 "move": "preview_of_approach"83 },84 {85 "paragraph_index": 0,86 "move": "preview_of_results"87 },88 {89 "paragraph_index": 1,90 "move": "preview_of_results"91 },92 {93 "paragraph_index": 1,94 "move": "mechanism_or_theory_sketch"95 },96 {97 "paragraph_index": 2,98 "move": "policy_or_broader_implication"99 },100 {101 "paragraph_index": 3,102 "move": "roadmap"103 }104 ],105 "contribution_paragraph_index": 0,106 "contribution_types": [107 "new_evidence"108 ],109 "roadmap_present": true,110 "literature_positioning_location": "none"111 },112 "section_roles": [113 {114 "idx": 0,115 "role": "introduction"116 },117 {118 "idx": 1,119 "role": "other"120 },121 {122 "idx": 2,123 "role": "empirical_design"124 },125 {126 "idx": 3,127 "role": "results"128 },129 {130 "idx": 4,131 "role": "results"132 },133 {134 "idx": 5,135 "role": "results"136 },137 {138 "idx": 6,139 "role": "results"140 },141 {142 "idx": 7,143 "role": "conclusion"144 },145 {146 "idx": 8,147 "role": "appendix"148 },149 {150 "idx": 9,151 "role": "appendix"152 },153 {154 "idx": 10,155 "role": "appendix"156 },157 {158 "idx": 11,159 "role": "appendix"160 },161 {162 "idx": 12,163 "role": "appendix"164 },165 {166 "idx": 13,167 "role": "appendix"168 },169 {170 "idx": 14,171 "role": "appendix"172 }173 ],174 "results_presentation": {175 "economic_significance_discussed": true,176 "statistical_significance_language": "mixed",177 "magnitude_statements_in_intro": true178 },179 "robustness": {180 "location": "mixed",181 "types": [182 "alternative_specification",183 "subsample",184 "other"185 ]186 },187 "tables": {188 "convention_notes": "Table notes define the dependent variable and the treatment dummies. They specify the estimator (fixed or random effects panel regressions, probit marginal effects) and list demographic controls. Descriptive tables use nonparametric Mann-Whitney tests to compare samples.",189 "units_stated_in_notes": true,190 "standard_errors_description": "clustered"191 },192 "figures": {193 "uncertainty_shown": "mixed"194 },195 "conclusion": {196 "bounded_claims": false,197 "policy_implications": true,198 "open_questions": true,199 "restates_contribution": true200 },201 "hedging": {202 "level": "low",203 "typical_devices": [204 "'can be explained in part'",205 "'might help explain'",206 "'consistent across all studies'"207 ]208 },209 "claim_evidence": [210 {211 "claim": "Forecasting returns rather than prices raises expectations; return charts rather than price charts lower them",212 "evidence_type": "table",213 "evidence_ref": "Table III, Figure 6"214 },215 {216 "claim": "Format effects are larger for subjects relying on intuition (low cognitive reflection)",217 "evidence_type": "table",218 "evidence_ref": "Table IV"219 },220 {221 "claim": "Format use in the field varies widely and arbitrarily, including after KIID regulation",222 "evidence_type": "table",223 "evidence_ref": "Table I, Figure 1"224 },225 {226 "claim": "Price charts induce extrapolation of recent returns; return charts plus return questions draw on full history",227 "evidence_type": "table",228 "evidence_ref": "Table VIII"229 },230 {231 "claim": "Reluctance to state negative numbers contributes to the format effects",232 "evidence_type": "table",233 "evidence_ref": "Table V, Table VI"234 },235 {236 "claim": "Chart and question formats affect forecast accuracy",237 "evidence_type": "table",238 "evidence_ref": "Table IX, Figure 8"239 }240 ],241 "structural_summary": "The paper opens with normative invariance as the benchmark and poses whether price and return formats are equivalent. It previews an experimental design that separates chart format from question format and reports effect magnitudes in the introduction, then notes implications for robo advisors and regulation. Field evidence on how formats are used comes first, followed by the design of the three studies. Results proceed from main treatment effects to mechanisms (intuition and number processing), then attention to past returns, then forecast accuracy. The conclusion closes with policy recommendations.",242 "writing_profile_keywords": [243 "experimental finance",244 "between-subject design",245 "format effects",246 "expectations",247 "cognitive reflection",248 "policy relevance",249 "robo advisors"250 ],251 "confidence": 0.8,252 "notes": "No explicit literature-positioning paragraph is visible in the excerpted introduction, so literature_positioning_location is set to 'none'. The introduction text is truncated, so it may in fact contain literature positioning. Appendix headings indicate further robustness checks, and an Internet Appendix is referenced."253 },254 "deterministic_checks": {255 "roadmap_regex": true,256 "contribution_regex_in_intro": true,257 "magnitude_in_abstract": false,258 "abstract_n_sentences": 6,259 "intro_n_paragraphs": 4,260 "intro_n_words": 653,261 "causal_words_in_abstract": 1,262 "hedge_words_in_abstract": 0,263 "stars_mentioned": false,264 "clustered_se_mentioned": true,265 "internet_appendix_mentioned": true,266 "section_roles_rule": {267 "0": "introduction",268 "1": "other",269 "2": "other",270 "3": "other",271 "4": "other",272 "5": "other",273 "6": "other",274 "7": "conclusion",275 "8": "appendix",276 "9": "appendix",277 "10": "appendix",278 "11": "appendix",279 "12": "appendix",280 "13": "appendix",281 "14": "appendix"282 }283 },284 "schema_valid": true,285 "code_version": "87c73cd-dirty"286}