paper-reprolisted

# Paper Reproduction Workflow Goal: independent verification, not transcription. The reproduction must be able to disagree with the paper. ## Phase 1: Extract the claim contract Before touching code, write down from the paper: 1. Headline claims with exact numbers (table and page) 2. Data sources, date ranges, universe definitions 3. Every specification in every reported model (they will matter later) 4. What would count as a failed reproduction If any of these are ambiguous, list the ambiguities first; ambiguity resolution choices explain many "failed" reproductions. ## Phase 2: Minimum viable replication Implement the SINGLE headline result only. Resist implementing everything. - Match data vintage where possible; document every forced substitution - Prefer writing your own implementation over running authors' code first; then diff against their repo if available - Log every deviation as you make it: `DEVIATION: used X because Y` ## Phase 3: Verdict taxonomy Classify the outcome honestly: - **REPLICATED**: numbers match within rounding - **REPLICATED WITH DEVIATIONS**: same conclusion after documented substitutions - **PARTIALLY REPLICATED**: some tables/robustness checks hold, others do not; say which - **NOT REPLICATED**: cannot recover headline numbers; report your best-guess numbers alongside theirs - **NOT REPRODUCIBLE**: impossible to attempt (no data, no spec detail); list exactly what is missing ## Phase 4: Robustness the paper skipped Run at minimum: - Al