1{"text": "{\"genre\":\"empirical\",\"subfield\":\"entrepreneurial_finance_private_equity\",\"subfield_secondary\":\"corporate_finance\",\"primary_method\":\"survey_or_experiment\",\"identification\":{\"estimand\":\"Effect on investor click-through (interest) of disclosing each information category (team, traction, current investors) about a fund-raising start-up\",\"strategy\":\"Randomized field experiment: among the categories that pass the platform's disclosure threshold, which ones appear in featured emails is randomized; linear regressions of clicks on category indicators with start-up fixed effects, using opened emails only\",\"key_assumptions\":[\"Randomization of displayed categories is independent of investor and start-up characteristics\",\"Investors read a missing category as signaling low quality\",\"Click-through captures investor interest at the initial screening stage\"],\"threats_addressed\":[\"Omitted unobservable start-up characteristics (start-up fixed effects plus randomization)\",\"Investors not seeing the email (sample restricted to opened emails)\",\"External validity of the 21 experiment firms (compared with the broad AngelList sample)\",\"Ordering of information categories\",\"Differences in signal-to-noise ratios across categories\",\"Interpretation of click rates as interest\"],\"causal_language_strength\":4,\"uses_causal_claim\":true},\"abstract_moves\":{\"question\":{\"present\":true,\"sentence_index\":0},\"gap\":{\"present\":false,\"sentence_index\":-1},\"method\":{\"present\":true,\"sentence_index\":1},\"results\":{\"present\":true,\"sentence_index\":2},\"magnitude\":{\"present\":false,\"sentence_index\":-1},\"contribution\":{\"present\":true,\"sentence_index\":4}},\"introduction\":{\"moves\":[{\"paragraph_index\":0,\"move\":\"motivation\"},{\"paragraph_index\":0,\"move\":\"literature_gap\"},{\"paragraph_index\":0,\"move\":\"contribution_statement\"},{\"paragraph_index\":1,\"move\":\"mechanism_or_theory_sketch\"},{\"paragraph_index\":2,\"move\":\"identification_defense\"},{\"paragraph_index\":3,\"move\":\"preview_of_approach\"},{\"paragraph_index\":4,\"move\":\"preview_of_approach\"},{\"paragraph_index\":5,\"move\":\"preview_of_results\"},{\"paragraph_index\":6,\"move\":\"mechanism_or_theory_sketch\"},{\"paragraph_index\":6,\"move\":\"preview_of_results\"},{\"paragraph_index\":7,\"move\":\"other\"},{\"paragraph_index\":8,\"move\":\"preview_of_results\"},{\"paragraph_index\":9,\"move\":\"related_literature_positioning\"},{\"paragraph_index\":10,\"move\":\"related_literature_positioning\"},{\"paragraph_index\":10,\"move\":\"contribution_statement\"},{\"paragraph_index\":11,\"move\":\"related_literature_positioning\"},{\"paragraph_index\":12,\"move\":\"roadmap\"}],\"contribution_paragraph_index\":0,\"contribution_types\":[\"new_evidence\",\"new_identification\"],\"roadmap_present\":true,\"literature_positioning_location\":\"inside_introduction\"},\"section_roles\":[{\"idx\":0,\"role\":\"introduction\"},{\"idx\":1,\"role\":\"other\"},{\"idx\":2,\"role\":\"empirical_design\"},{\"idx\":3,\"role\":\"data\"},{\"idx\":4,\"role\":\"results\"},{\"idx\":5,\"role\":\"results\"},{\"idx\":6,\"role\":\"results\"},{\"idx\":7,\"role\":\"robustness\"},{\"idx\":8,\"role\":\"conclusion\"}],\"results_presentation\":{\"economic_significance_discussed\":false,\"statistical_significance_language\":\"unclear\",\"magnitude_statements_in_intro\":false},\"robustness\":{\"location\":\"main_text_section\",\"types\":[\"subsample\",\"alternative_measure\",\"alternative_specification\",\"other\"]},\"tables\":{\"convention_notes\":\"Table notes define the binary click outcome and the information-category indicators and state that only opened emails are used. Descriptive tables cover emails, start-ups and investors, and a final table compares experiment firms with the broad platform sample. No coefficient values or standard-error details are visible in the excerpts.\",\"units_stated_in_notes\":true,\"standard_errors_description\":\"unclear\"},\"figures\":{\"uncertainty_shown\":\"no\"},\"conclusion\":{\"bounded_claims\":true,\"policy_implications\":false,\"open_questions\":false,\"restates_contribution\":true},\"hedging\":{\"level\":\"moderate\",\"typical_devices\":[\"suggestive evidence\",\"indirect evidence\",\"explicit statement of limitations (long-run outcomes not observed)\",\"results consistent with an existing model\",\"disclaimer that nonhuman assets may still matter\"]},\"claim_evidence\":[{\"claim\":\"Investors' click rates respond strongly to founding-team information but not significantly to traction or current-investor information\",\"evidence_type\":\"table\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Table IV\"},{\"claim\":\"Investors specialized in the start-up's sector react as strongly to team information, indicating that operational ability matters beyond signaling\",\"evidence_type\":\"table\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Table VI\"},{\"claim\":\"More experienced and successful investors react only to team information, indirectly supporting team-based selection as a viable strategy\",\"evidence_type\":\"table\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Tables VII, IX\"},{\"claim\":\"Experiment start-ups are compared with the broad AngelList population to assess external validity\",\"evidence_type\":\"table\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Table X\"},{\"claim\":\"Successful early-stage investing reflects skill, as shown by persistence of VC returns\",\"evidence_type\":\"prior_literature\",\"evidence_ref\":\"Kaplan and Schoar (2005) et al.\"}],\"structural_summary\":\"The introduction motivates the question of how early-stage investors select start-ups and notes scarce evidence. It frames three competing hypotheses drawn from theories of the firm and herding, explains the omitted-variable and selected-sample problems, and introduces a randomized email experiment on AngelList. The body describes the platform, the experimental design and summary statistics, then reports main click-rate regressions. Two follow-up sections test mechanisms (signal versus operational capability) and the rationality of team-based selection. A discussion section addresses robustness and external validity, and a short conclusion restates the findings and links them to Rajan (2012).\",\"writing_profile_keywords\":[\"randomized field experiment\",\"competing hypotheses framing\",\"online platform data\",\"mechanism exploration\",\"explicit limitations\",\"first experimental evidence claim\",\"entrepreneurial finance\"],\"confidence\":0.85,\"notes\":\"The section role labeled 'conclusion' for Summary Statistics has been corrected to 'data'. The Discussion section serves as the robustness section. Standard-error treatment and significance notation are not visible in the excerpts.\"}", "json": {"genre": "empirical", "subfield": "entrepreneurial_finance_private_equity", "subfield_secondary": "corporate_finance", "primary_method": "survey_or_experiment", "identification": {"estimand": "Effect on investor click-through (interest) of disclosing each information category (team, traction, current investors) about a fund-raising start-up", "strategy": "Randomized field experiment: among the categories that pass the platform's disclosure threshold, which ones appear in featured emails is randomized; linear regressions of clicks on category indicators with start-up fixed effects, using opened emails only", "key_assumptions": ["Randomization of displayed categories is independent of investor and start-up characteristics", "Investors read a missing category as signaling low quality", "Click-through captures investor interest at the initial screening stage"], "threats_addressed": ["Omitted unobservable start-up characteristics (start-up fixed effects plus randomization)", "Investors not seeing the email (sample restricted to opened emails)", "External validity of the 21 experiment firms (compared with the broad AngelList sample)", "Ordering of information categories", "Differences in signal-to-noise ratios across categories", "Interpretation of click rates as interest"], "causal_language_strength": 4, "uses_causal_claim": true}, "abstract_moves": {"question": {"present": true, "sentence_index": 0}, "gap": {"present": false, "sentence_index": -1}, "method": {"present": true, "sentence_index": 1}, "results": {"present": true, "sentence_index": 2}, "magnitude": {"present": false, "sentence_index": -1}, "contribution": {"present": true, "sentence_index": 4}}, "introduction": {"moves": [{"paragraph_index": 0, "move": "motivation"}, {"paragraph_index": 0, "move": "literature_gap"}, {"paragraph_index": 0, "move": "contribution_statement"}, {"paragraph_index": 1, "move": "mechanism_or_theory_sketch"}, {"paragraph_index": 2, "move": "identification_defense"}, {"paragraph_index": 3, "move": "preview_of_approach"}, {"paragraph_index": 4, "move": "preview_of_approach"}, {"paragraph_index": 5, "move": "preview_of_results"}, {"paragraph_index": 6, "move": "mechanism_or_theory_sketch"}, {"paragraph_index": 6, "move": "preview_of_results"}, {"paragraph_index": 7, "move": "other"}, {"paragraph_index": 8, "move": "preview_of_results"}, {"paragraph_index": 9, "move": "related_literature_positioning"}, {"paragraph_index": 10, "move": "related_literature_positioning"}, {"paragraph_index": 10, "move": "contribution_statement"}, {"paragraph_index": 11, "move": "related_literature_positioning"}, {"paragraph_index": 12, "move": "roadmap"}], "contribution_paragraph_index": 0, "contribution_types": ["new_evidence", "new_identification"], "roadmap_present": true, "literature_positioning_location": "inside_introduction"}, "section_roles": [{"idx": 0, "role": "introduction"}, {"idx": 1, "role": "other"}, {"idx": 2, "role": "empirical_design"}, {"idx": 3, "role": "data"}, {"idx": 4, "role": "results"}, {"idx": 5, "role": "results"}, {"idx": 6, "role": "results"}, {"idx": 7, "role": "robustness"}, {"idx": 8, "role": "conclusion"}], "results_presentation": {"economic_significance_discussed": false, "statistical_significance_language": "unclear", "magnitude_statements_in_intro": false}, "robustness": {"location": "main_text_section", "types": ["subsample", "alternative_measure", "alternative_specification", "other"]}, "tables": {"convention_notes": "Table notes define the binary click outcome and the information-category indicators and state that only opened emails are used. Descriptive tables cover emails, start-ups and investors, and a final table compares experiment firms with the broad platform sample. No coefficient values or standard-error details are visible in the excerpts.", "units_stated_in_notes": true, "standard_errors_description": "unclear"}, "figures": {"uncertainty_shown": "no"}, "conclusion": {"bounded_claims": true, "policy_implications": false, "open_questions": false, "restates_contribution": true}, "hedging": {"level": "moderate", "typical_devices": ["suggestive evidence", "indirect evidence", "explicit statement of limitations (long-run outcomes not observed)", "results consistent with an existing model", "disclaimer that nonhuman assets may still matter"]}, "claim_evidence": [{"claim": "Investors' click rates respond strongly to founding-team information but not significantly to traction or current-investor information", "evidence_type": "table", "evidence_ref": "Table IV"}, {"claim": "Investors specialized in the start-up's sector react as strongly to team information, indicating that operational ability matters beyond signaling", "evidence_type": "table", "evidence_ref": "Table VI"}, {"claim": "More experienced and successful investors react only to team information, indirectly supporting team-based selection as a viable strategy", "evidence_type": "table", "evidence_ref": "Tables VII, IX"}, {"claim": "Experiment start-ups are compared with the broad AngelList population to assess external validity", "evidence_type": "table", "evidence_ref": "Table X"}, {"claim": "Successful early-stage investing reflects skill, as shown by persistence of VC returns", "evidence_type": "prior_literature", "evidence_ref": "Kaplan and Schoar (2005) et al."}], "structural_summary": "The introduction motivates the question of how early-stage investors select start-ups and notes scarce evidence. It frames three competing hypotheses drawn from theories of the firm and herding, explains the omitted-variable and selected-sample problems, and introduces a randomized email experiment on AngelList. The body describes the platform, the experimental design and summary statistics, then reports main click-rate regressions. Two follow-up sections test mechanisms (signal versus operational capability) and the rationality of team-based selection. A discussion section addresses robustness and external validity, and a short conclusion restates the findings and links them to Rajan (2012).", "writing_profile_keywords": ["randomized field experiment", "competing hypotheses framing", "online platform data", "mechanism exploration", "explicit limitations", "first experimental evidence claim", "entrepreneurial finance"], "confidence": 0.85, "notes": "The section role labeled 'conclusion' for Summary Statistics has been corrected to 'data'. The Discussion section serves as the robustness section. Standard-error treatment and significance notation are not visible in the excerpts."}, "model": "claude-opus-5-5", "stop_reason": "end_turn", "latency_s": 18.38, "usage": {"input": 7796, "output": 2245, "cache_read": 3968, "cache_write": 0}, "cost_usd": 0.076878, "request_id": "req_011CggpW3Hwckb3yVmdXQ6tj", "cached": false, "ts": "2026-11-03T22:56:16+00:00", "effort": "medium"}