{
 "title": "Second pass on the 99 'disputed choice of method' flags: adjudication",
 "date": "2026-11-09",
 "readers": "Reader A: Claude (Anthropic). Reader B: Gemini 3.8 Flash (Google), blind to reader A's grades. Disagreements settled by SaneCite from the cited pages, under the rules below.",
 "protocol": [
  "https://sanecite.com/data/sz-check/second-pass/protocol.md",
  "https://sanecite.com/data/sz-check/second-pass/amendments.md (amendments 1 and 2)",
  "Rules R2-R6 of our 29 Oct 2026 adjudication rules",
  "The red team report (9 Nov 2026)"
 ],
 "grade_labels": "The page shows DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED split by the disclosed field: 'defensible, stated in the paper' (disclosed yes) and 'defensible, not stated' (disclosed no).",
 "rules_applied": [
  "STANDARD when the paper states the choice (text, appendix, footnote, table or figure note, or code or workbook comments) and a work the paper or the flag cites uses the same choice; showing the alternative is not required (as both readers applied it at ranks 4, 10, 46, 66, 100).",
  "Amendment 2: the authors' own earlier papers count as cited work when the paper or the flag cites them; standard_rests_only_on_own_work records when they are the only such work.",
  "A choice stated only by citing another paper is not counted as stated (ranks 8, 23, 102, 146).",
  "A choice that is stated and tested for sensitivity but used in no cited work stays DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED, with disclosed = yes (the amendment 2 gap).",
  "Where the decisive text (a book or chapter) could not be reached and the grade turns on it, CANNOT TELL (ranks 21, 42, 85, 116, 135, 144).",
  "RECLASSIFY yes only where the red team upheld it and the adjudicator agrees after re-running its script.",
  "No research beyond files and pages the readers or the red team cited (R6)."
 ],
 "rows": [
  {
   "rank": 1,
   "flag_id": "zucman-2014-taxing-across-borders#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "JEP 2014 pp.127-129 (PDF pp.7-9): data choice stated, with the caution that the data show 'mainly the location of the holding companies'",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The paper states its data choice and warns what it measures, but it does not show the haven share or the 20% figure on an own-income basis, and no cited comparable work using first-tier BoP income for this purpose could be shown. The alternative is disputed in the literature the flag cites (Blouin-Robinson vs Clausing), so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 2,
   "flag_id": "saez-zucman-2020-rise-income-wealth-inequality-america#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "JEP p.14 (PDF p.12) states the 50/50 retained-earnings rule. The underreported-income rule is not stated in the JEP (no hit for 'underreport' in the text); it is in Piketty, Saez and Zucman (2018) and its updates.",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Under amendment 2 the authors' PSZ (2018) counts, but the underreporting rule is not stated in the JEP (PDF p.12 states only the 50/50 rule), so it cannot be STANDARD.",
   "grade": "defensible, not stated"
  },
  {
   "rank": 3,
   "flag_id": "johannesen-zucman-2014-end-of-bank-secrecy#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "JohannesenZucman2014.pdf pdf p.21 (journal p.85), qualitative only: 'results not reported'",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. The stricter haven-year specification was run but no numbers are shown (JohannesenZucman2014.pdf PDF p.21, journal p.85: 'results not reported'). B's precedent, Huizinga and Nicodeme (2004), is cited only for its finding on information exchange (PDF p.2), not for this specification, so no cited work is shown using it.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 4,
   "flag_id": "piketty-zucman-2015-wealth-inheritance-long-run#3",
   "a_grade": "STANDARD",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "STANDARD",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Handbook chapter pp.1327, 1334-1337 (PDF pp.25, 32-35): formula with v stated; p.1337 answers the tax-incentive point",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": false,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The chapter states the gift-inclusive flow and why gifts must be counted, and the UK and German series it cites use the same gift-bequest ratio, so the choice is standard. The lower 10.3% level rests on Geerolf's 2026 gift correction, which is a dispute among researchers, not a departure from the chapter's own rule, so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "standard"
  },
  {
   "rank": 5,
   "flag_id": "saez-zucman-2022-top-wealth-america-reexamination#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "SZ2022NBER.pdf PDF pp.7-9 (printed pp.5-7), Table 3, fn 5-7",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Checked under amendment 2: SZ2022NBER.pdf PDF p.7 calls capitalizing pass-through interest separately 'not a convincing methodology', and the authors' estate method it cites (fn 7) is a different approach, so own earlier work does not make the 2.5% STANDARD.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 7,
   "flag_id": "francois-oliveira-planterose-zucman-2022-modern-excess-profit-tax#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "STANDARD",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Note_nov2022.pdf PDF p.8: destination-based apportionment of non-resident multinationals' gains by EU sales; Table 1 gives the EU-firm-only figure",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": false,
   "note": "Took B. The note states the destination-based apportionment of non-EU firms' gains by EU sales and says Hebous, Prihardini and Vernon (2022) propose the same principle for non-resident multinationals (Note_nov2022.pdf PDF p.8); Table 1 also gives the EU-firm-only figure. A's point that treaty limits are never discussed is real, but it does not stop the choice being stated and used in cited work.",
   "grade": "standard"
  },
  {
   "rank": 8,
   "flag_id": "zucman-2019-global-wealth-inequality#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "Not in the paper. Zucman2019.pdf p.126 (PDF p.18) says Europe is represented by France, Spain and the UK, but names no currency conversion and no population rule. Both are in the WIR 2018 code (wealth-evolution-cn-eu-us.R lines 20, 30-37) and in Blanchet (2017, WID TN 2017/7, p.2).",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Under amendment 2 the WIR 2018 counts, but the review article does not state the exchange-rate or population choices (Zucman2019.pdf PDF p.18), so it cannot be STANDARD.",
   "grade": "defensible, not stated"
  },
  {
   "rank": 9,
   "flag_id": "saez-zucman-2019-triumph-of-injustice#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "CONTESTED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Code comment only: PSZ2017Programs__projection.do header (zip stamp 16 Jul 2019); book text not reachable",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "CONTESTED. The projection is stated only in a code comment (PSZ2017Programs__projection.do) and the book is not reachable. B counts the authors' later update note, cited by the flag, whose 2017-2019 series are also projections ('provisional and subject to revision', PSZUpdates.pdf PDF p.3); A does not count a later data note as comparable published work. The protocol does not settle which reading applies.",
   "grade": "contested"
  },
  {
   "rank": 10,
   "flag_id": "atkinson-etal-2011-top-incomes-long-run-history#1",
   "a_grade": "STANDARD",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "STANDARD",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "JEL 2011 pp.3, 5-6 (PDF pp.1, 3-4) and figure notes: income defined as market income including realized capital gains; series follow the tax law",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": false,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The paper states that its series are fiscal income and that it follows Kuznets (1953) and Piketty and Saez (2003), so the choice is standard for this literature. The smaller changes on pre-tax national income come from a later concept, which is a disputed choice, not a departure from the paper's own rule, so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "standard"
  },
  {
   "rank": 12,
   "flag_id": "landais-piketty-saez-2011-revolution-fiscale#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Annexes_Simulateur.pdf section C.2.2, p.24",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The rule is stated in the companion annex, and the authors themselves call it a weak point, but no result under another imputation is shown. No cited comparable work using this exact rule could be shown, so it is not STANDARD.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 13,
   "flag_id": "chetty-etal-2014-land-of-opportunity-geography#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Text p.33 (author version) mentions population weighting as a robustness check; Online App. Table VIII col. 3 reports weighted univariate correlations; no weighted multivariate table in the published version",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. Equal weighting is stated (p.33) and weighted univariate results are in Online Appendix Table VIII col. 3, but B names no cited work using unweighted CZ correlations; 'standard in spatial economics' is not a citation.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 14,
   "flag_id": "zucman-2014-taxing-across-borders#4",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Zucman2014JEP.pdf pp.130-131 defines the rate; p.131 notes that falling capital-gains realizations lowered the 2007-2010 rate; fn 5 (p.132) warns that yearly data swing with gains. The 1998 base-year effect is not discussed and no gains-adjusted rate is shown.",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The definition is stated, but the gains-adjusted rate the flag raises is not shown (the workbook's gains-inclusive column AX is not reported). The single-year headline goes against fn 5, but following fn 5 gives a larger fall (11.0 pp), so that departure does not inflate the number. I could not show comparable cited work using the same ratio without a new search, so not STANDARD; RECLASSIFY no.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 15,
   "flag_id": "kleven-etal-2014-danish-foreigners-tax-scheme#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "QJE Table II panel B1, pdf p.26 (journal p.358); text pdf p.29 (journal p.361)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. The percentile alternative is printed (QJE Table II panel B1, PDF p.26), so the choice is disclosed. Kleven, Landais and Saez (2013) is cited for football-player mobility (PDF p.2) with a different design, and Kleven et al. (2020) is a later survey; no cited work is shown using threshold comparison groups. Disclosed and tested but not shown common (the amendment 2 gap).",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 18,
   "flag_id": "landais-piketty-saez-2011-revolution-fiscale#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Companion workbook TableauxGraphiques_Livre.xls, sheet G1-1 note ('incluant tous les prelevements'; book ch.1 p.50); the book text (p.53) is not public",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. The companion workbook states it (sheet G1-1 note, 'incluant tous les prelevements'), but the cited CPO (2011) report excludes these contributions, and B shows no cited work counting them as taxes.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 20,
   "flag_id": "bachas-hernandez-laverde-londonovelez-zucman-2026-aeoi-colombia#3",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "BHLLZ2026.pdf fn 4 (PDF p.5) and Section 3 (PDF p.9, printed p.8)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. The DIAN yield rule is stated (fn 4, PDF p.5). B's precedents (Saez and Zucman 2016; Smith et al. 2022) capitalize income in general, not interest and dividend flows at a 100-year corporate yield, so the specific rate is not shown in cited work.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 21,
   "flag_id": "saez-2021-should-we-tax-wealth#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "final_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "Chapter p.155 cites Saez and Zucman (2019b, ch.7) (quote from the audit; chapter PDF returned HTTP 403); credits convention stated in PSZ 2018 QJE fn 65",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "CANNOT TELL, as rank 144 (same 2018 top-400 rate, same unreachable chapter). The chapter returned HTTP 403; A's evidence is the audit's quote and the authors' other papers, and B had no chapter text.",
   "grade": "cannot tell"
  },
  {
   "rank": 22,
   "flag_id": "boas-johannesen-kreiner-larsen-zucman-2024-automatic-information-exchange#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "BJKLZ2026.pdf printed p.9 (PDF p.10): unmatched wealth is 'predominantly held in non-haven countries' and its exclusion 'should not be a major source of concern'. No estimate with unmatched wealth included is shown.",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: Stated with a reason, so not QUESTIONABLE, but the paper shows no estimate with unmatched wealth included, and its non-haven reason sits awkwardly with Table 1 counting 28.0bn of matched non-haven wealth. RECLASSIFY no: how far the 70% falls depends on how much unmatched wealth belongs to in-scope Danish taxpayers, which no public number shows (the flag's own range is 41-63%).",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 23,
   "flag_id": "alvaredo-chancel-piketty-saez-zucman-2017-global-inequality-dynamics#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "Not in this paper; it refers to Piketty, Saez and Zucman (2016) and the DINA guidelines (ACPSZ2017AEAPP.pdf pdf p.2, fn 2)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. The short paper was readable (ACPSZ2017AEAPP.pdf PDF p.2, fn 2): it refers to PSZ (2016) and the DINA guidelines and does not state the allocation rule. B's CANNOT TELL came from receiving no pages, not from missing material. Statement by reference is not counted as stated, as at ranks 8, 102 and 146.",
   "grade": "defensible, not stated"
  },
  {
   "rank": 24,
   "flag_id": "chetty-etal-2015-economic-mobility-pathways#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "final_grade": "STANDARD",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "SOTU 2015 chapter p.55 and figure note: 'for children born after 1986, estimates are predictions based on college attendance rates'; forecast series in open circles",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": true,
   "note": "STANDARD under amendment 2. The chapter states the forecast (SOTU 2015 p.55 and figure note) and points to Chetty et al. (2014b), the authors' own paper, which uses the same college-gradient forecast. Rests only on the authors' own work; that source paper is graded DEFENSIBLE at ranks 61 and 62.",
   "grade": "standard"
  },
  {
   "rank": 25,
   "flag_id": "piketty-saez-zucman-2019-simplified-dina#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "PSZ2019simplifiedDINA.pdf pp.292-293; PSZ2019datafile.xlsx ReadMe!A8",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The simplification is stated and its weakness conceded, but the paper shows no result under the alternative keys. The 1.2-point change rests on shares the flag assumes, so it is not a reclassification.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 26,
   "flag_id": "card-etal-2012-inequality-at-work#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "AER 2012 Table 4 (journal p.2994) reports the I, II and II-I estimates; p.2995 gives the interpretation",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The tests the paper runs are stated, but it reads 'not significant' as 'no effect' and does not report the symmetry test the flag raises. Which test is right is disputed and no printed number changes, so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 27,
   "flag_id": "bachas-hernandez-laverde-londonovelez-zucman-2026-aeoi-colombia#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Body only: BHLLZ2026.pdf printed p.9 (PDF p.10) and printed p.13 (PDF p.14). The abstract (p.1), introduction summary (p.3) and conclusion (p.14) give 38% without the caveat.",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. The body states the bundling caveat (BHLLZ2026.pdf PDF pp.10, 14) but shows no estimate net of the 2017 amnesty, and the abstract drops the caveat; B's 'comparable literature' is not named.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 28,
   "flag_id": "jakobsen-jakobsen-kleven-zucman-2020-wealth-taxation-denmark#4",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "JJKZ2020.pdf eq. 2 and fn 20 (pdf p.19, journal p.347), fn 3 (pdf p.3), Table II (pdf p.35)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. The trend adjustment is stated (eq. 2, fn 20, PDF p.19) and the raw DD printed (Table II), but the cited Freyaldenhoven-Hansen-Shapiro and Roth papers are methods papers, not applications, and the 1.15 elasticity is shown only on the adjusted series.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 33,
   "flag_id": "alstadsaeter-godar-nicolaides-zucman-2023-global-tax-evasion-report-2024#2",
   "a_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "b_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "final_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Report pp.6, 9, 37, 52 (PDF pp.6, 9, 37, 52) and Figure 3 data (0-summary datafig3)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept QUESTIONABLE: the report dates the carve-out after the 2021 agreement against the cited OECD statement (8 Oct 2021, p.4) and its own p.74, with no reason. RECLASSIFY no, as the red team found: against the baseline the report states (15% with no carve-out, PDF pp.9, 37) the factor is 1.97 (the red team's script, re-run 9 Nov 2026, identical). The dating is listed as a wording slip.",
   "grade": "questionable"
  },
  {
   "rank": 34,
   "flag_id": "alstadsaeter-godar-nicolaides-zucman-2023-global-tax-evasion-report-2024#3",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "GTER2024.pdf pp.28-29, fn 27, Figure 1.4; data/1-offshore-wealth.xlsx dataFig1.4",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. Assumptions and a 15-37% range are stated (GTER2024.pdf pp.28-29); the only cited source, Boas et al. (2023), supplies the Danish parameters but does not apply them worldwide.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 37,
   "flag_id": "alstadsaeter-johannesen-leguernherry-zucman-2026-global-financial-transparency#3",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "AJLZ 2026 printed p.7 (PDF p.9): Eq. (1) and the reason for the lag",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The design is stated, but the paper does not address feedback from transfers to later ranks or show an alternative such as ranking on pre-transfer wealth. The bias size depends on unobserved parameters, so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 38,
   "flag_id": "alstadsaeter-johannesen-zucman-2018-who-owns-wealth-tax-havens#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "AJZ2018.pdf p.9 (Section 5.1). The paper says other distributions are tested in Online Appendix Tables A.9-A.11, but the published workbook and appendix hold only the baseline.",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. The paper's statement that Online Appendix Tables A.9-A.11 test other distributions is not borne out by the published appendix and workbook; listed as a wording slip.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 39,
   "flag_id": "alstadsaeter-johannesen-zucman-2018-who-owns-wealth-tax-havens#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "Workbook formula only (AJZ2017bData.xlsx T.A8 and T.A9 col T); the paper text does not say which Russian stock enters Fig. 8",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: Using NPZ's stock keeps the Russian numbers consistent with the source of the inclusive share, so the choice is reasonable, but the paper never says the Russian top-share result uses the broader stock, nor shows it on its own BIS-based stock. Which stock is right is disputed, so RECLASSIFY is no.",
   "grade": "defensible, not stated"
  },
  {
   "rank": 42,
   "flag_id": "alvaredo-chancel-piketty-saez-zucman-2018-dina-for-good-measure#1",
   "a_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "b_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "final_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "None found in the paper",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: Whether the chapter states its allocation rule, and what it cites for it, cannot be checked because the chapter is behind a 403 on every OECD route and no other copy was found. The flag itself rates the size dispute with Auten-Splinter 'plausible' and 'still debated', so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "cannot tell"
  },
  {
   "rank": 46,
   "flag_id": "alvaredo-etal-2013-top-1-percent-international-historical#1",
   "a_grade": "STANDARD",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "STANDARD",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "jep13.pdf PDF p.3 (concept and sources) and PDF p.11 (caveat on taxable income definitions)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": true,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. The concept is stated (jep13.pdf PDF p.3) and used in the works it cites, Piketty and Saez (2003), the World Top Incomes Database and Atkinson, Piketty and Saez (2011), all the authors' own; under amendment 2 that counts, so this STANDARD rests only on the authors' own work.",
   "grade": "standard"
  },
  {
   "rank": 47,
   "flag_id": "andreescu-et-al-2025-equality-and-development#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "WID WP 2025/25, Section on regressions (Eq. 2 and Tables 3-4); 'illustrative purposes only' and 'inherently fragile'",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The regressions are stated and called fragile, but the paper does not show the within-region or within-country results or clustered errors, under which the residual link vanishes or reverses. The conclusion is qualitative and the spec is a disputed choice, so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 49,
   "flag_id": "andreescu-et-al-2025-equality-and-development#3",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "WID_WP2025_25_Final.pdf PDF p.37 (printed p.36): the baseline uses total human-capital expenditure; the public/private split is said to have 'little effect' on the equality coefficient, but no estimates for it are shown.",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: Stated, but the split the paper says it ran is not shown, and released data give a 53-71% smaller, insignificant coefficient. That contradicts a stated finding rather than a stated method, so DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED rather than QUESTIONABLE. RECLASSIFY no: no headline number printed in the paper changes, and the rebuilt series only approximates the authors' private input.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 51,
   "flag_id": "andreescu-et-al-2025-equality-and-development#5",
   "a_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "None found in the paper",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Took A. B's own reason confirms the US-only 1940-1950 endpoint is undisclosed and differs from the plain endpoints used for every other series (our first-pass evidence for 51) and from the period labels in Fig. 34. That is a departure from the paper's own method with no reason: QUESTIONABLE.",
   "grade": "questionable"
  },
  {
   "rank": 52,
   "flag_id": "bachas-fisherpost-jensen-zucman-2022-capital-taxation-development-globalization#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "NBER w29819 p.12 (PDF p.14) and fn 11: imputation 'following the imputation procedures used in the World Inequality Database'; table notes (e.g. PDF p.55) on dummy controls for imputed factor-share data; AEJ Supp. App. B.1 p.15 per the flag (not reachable)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The paper states the imputation and shows the sector-share effects with an income control (where they survive in its full sample), but it does not show them without imputed cells, and the only cited source for the imputation is the authors' own WID while the cited Karabarbounis-Neiman data use complete cases only. The flag's LMIC re-estimate with an income control is its own diagnostic choice; no number in the paper's own rule changes, so no reclassification. The AEJ version the flag cites was not reachable; the NBER version and the replication package were used.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 53,
   "flag_id": "bachas-hernandez-laverde-londonovelez-zucman-2026-aeoi-colombia#1",
   "a_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "BHLLZ2026.pdf Section 4.3 and fn 18-19 (PDF p.13, printed p.12)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Took B, as the red team found. Fn 19 (BHLLZ2026.pdf PDF p.13) states the 7,600 bn base and gives a reason ('likely conservative'); the haven-only share (about 24%) is one of several counterfactuals running from 20% to 64% on the paper's own numbers (the red team's script, re-run 9 Nov 2026, identical), so it is a disputed choice, not a departure.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 54,
   "flag_id": "bachas-hernandez-laverde-londonovelez-zucman-2026-aeoi-colombia#4",
   "a_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "Not stated in words: fn 20 (PDF p.14) prints 41.7m and the 17m control, which match Table A.6's all-asset row, but the paper never says it uses that row rather than the financial row",
   "reclassify": true,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Took A, as the red team upheld. The paper defines its denominator as offshore financial wealth (PDF p.13) yet takes the disclosure rate from Table A.6's all-asset row (41.692; fn 20, PDF p.14) when the same table has the matching financial row (36.323), with no reason given. B's own reason concedes the financial row gives about 19%. We re-ran the red team's script on 9 Nov 2026: output identical. RECLASSIFY yes (see reclassify_detail).",
   "grade": "questionable"
  },
  {
   "rank": 55,
   "flag_id": "barake-chouc-neef-zucman-2022-revenue-effects-global-minimum-tax#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "BCNZ2022.pdf main text before fn 20 and fn 20 (Intertax pp.696-697); Online Appendix 1 section B.4 (PDF pp.12-15) and Table B.4.2.",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. Fully stated, with the dividend-adjusted EUR 41.6bn shown (BCNZ2022.pdf pp.696-697; Online Appendix 1 B.4), but the national notes the paper cites adjust for dividends, so no cited work uses the unadjusted base. Disclosed and tested but not shown common (the amendment 2 gap).",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 60,
   "flag_id": "chancel-piketty-saez-zucman-2021-world-inequality-report-2022#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "WIR2022 Box 6.1, pdf p.135; Chancel (2022) SI pp.14-15",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The owner-based rule is stated and argued, and the cited studies support the strength of the wealth link, but the report never shows its top-1% share or growth split under consumer-based attribution, the main alternative. Attribution of investment emissions is a convention researchers dispute, so RECLASSIFY is no.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 61,
   "flag_id": "chetty-etal-2014-still-land-of-opportunity-trends#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "NBER WP 19844 pp.7-8 (PDF p.11) and fn 9; AER P&P p.145 per the flag",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. Stated with its caveat (nber_w19844.pdf PDF p.11, fn 9), but B's precedents (Bailey and Dynarski 2011; Chetty et al. 2014 geography paper) use college attendance as an outcome, not to forecast rank-rank slopes with constant scaling factors.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 62,
   "flag_id": "chetty-etal-2014-still-land-of-opportunity-trends#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "nber_w19844.pdf PDF p.10 (Figure 2 discussion) and fn 9",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A, as rank 61. The splice is stated (nber_w19844.pdf PDF p.10, fn 9) but no cited work uses college gradients to forecast income mobility; the later ChangingOpportunity paper benchmarks against these estimates, it does not use the method.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 63,
   "flag_id": "chetty-etal-2020-determinants-segregation-undermatching#1",
   "a_grade": "STANDARD",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "STANDARD",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "NBER w26748 abstract; Section on Table IV (printed pp.19-20); Appendix Table XI (full grid of the causal share)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": false,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Rank 64 (the QJE version of the same 80% share) is graded the same way for consistency.",
   "grade": "standard"
  },
  {
   "rank": 64,
   "flag_id": "chetty-etal-2020-income-segregation-mobility-colleges#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "STANDARD",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "qje20.pdf abstract (PDF p.2), p.1574 (PDF p.8), pp.1624-1626 (PDF pp.58-60, Table VII and fn 52-55); Online Appendix Table XVI grids the share from 0 to 100% (qje20appendix.pdf PDF p.37).",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": false,
   "note": "Took B, for consistency with rank 63 (the same 80% causal share, NBER version), graded STANDARD by both readers: stated, estimated with the Dale-Krueger application-set controls the paper cites (PDF pp.58-60), and gridded from 0 to 100% (Online Appendix Table XVI). A's doubt that 80% itself is common applies equally to rank 63.",
   "grade": "standard"
  },
  {
   "rank": 65,
   "flag_id": "diamond-saez-2011-case-for-progressive-tax#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "diamond-saezJEP11full.pdf pdf p.9-10 (journal pp.172-173)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. The 0.57 'upper bound' is stated with a reason (PDF pp.9-10), but no cited work is shown treating it as an upper bound; B's 'standard practice' points to Gruber and Saez (2002), the source of the estimate, which reports its standard error.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 66,
   "flag_id": "diamond-saez-2012-taxing-high-earnings#1",
   "a_grade": "STANDARD",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "STANDARD",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Parent article Diamond and Saez (2011, JEP) p.171 (PDF p.8); the Occupy Handbook chapter itself is not public",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": true,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. The 0.25 elasticity is the midpoint in Saez, Slemrod and Giertz (2012), which the chapter cites; Saez is an author of both, so under amendment 2 this STANDARD rests only on the authors' own work. The chapter itself is not public; its numbers match the parent JEP article (PDF p.8).",
   "grade": "standard"
  },
  {
   "rank": 67,
   "flag_id": "francois-oliveira-planterose-zucman-2022-modern-excess-profit-tax#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Note_nov2022.pdf p.11",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The 10% is stated with a reason (the observed oil majors and an energy-consumption check given without numbers). It is reasonable for firms like those majors, but the note shows no result for firms that plainly sell little in the EU, and no cited work uses the rule.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 68,
   "flag_id": "galle-etal-2026-california-billionaire-tax-prop40-expert-report#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Expert report (July 20, 2026) p.5: 'Have some billionaires left before January 1, 2026? No - that is very unlikely in most cases.'",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The report states the residency assumption and argues for it, but does not show the score under the departure scenario its own companion paper reports. Residency is a legal question for the courts, not a departure from a stated rule, so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 70,
   "flag_id": "galle-etal-2026-cbta-controlling-shares-valuation#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "memo.pdf p.1 and p.3 (memo.pages.txt lines 29-31 and 86-117): the reading and its reasons (Section 50308(j) Board catch-all, appraisal rebuttal, FTB rules, revenue scoring).",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. The memo states its reading with reasons (memo.pdf p.3). It cites the LAO scoring and Forbes for valuing super-voting shares at the listed price (memo.pages.txt lines 113-118), but those are valuation conventions known here only through the memo, and neither reader opened the LAO analysis; no cited work is shown taking the same legal reading.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 71,
   "flag_id": "garciabernardo-jansky-zucman-2022-tcja-profit-shifting#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "GBJZ2026.pdf abstract (pdf p.1) and Sec. 3.1 (pdf p.8)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. The 2017 base year is stated (GBJZ2026.pdf PDF pp.1, 8), but the cited before-and-after study (Clausing 2020a) was not opened, so no cited work is shown using a single-year baseline; B's 't-1 is standard' names none.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 72,
   "flag_id": "guyton-langetieg-reck-risch-zucman-2021-tax-evasion-top-income-distribution#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Dec 2025 revision Table A11 p.61, range p.41; Nov 2023 version p.38 ('We combine sophisticated and less-sophisticated evasion additively at the distributional level')",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The method and each lower bound are disclosed, but the paper does not show the case where both of its own lower bounds hold, which is the alternative the flag raises; nothing in cited work fixes that choice. The benchmark (21.3%, +1.0 pp) does not change, and the joint corner is a robustness choice rather than the paper's stated rule, so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 73,
   "flag_id": "jakobsen-jakobsen-kleven-zucman-2020-wealth-taxation-denmark#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "JJKZ2020.pdf journal pp.376-379 and fn 36; Online Appendix Figure A.XXI",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: This is the most open of the group: the restriction is stated and the online appendix plots the alternatives. It is graded DEFENSIBLE only because no cited work uses this restriction, so it cannot be STANDARD, and the main text and Table III give single elasticities without the range.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 74,
   "flag_id": "jakobsen-jakobsen-kleven-zucman-2020-wealth-taxation-denmark#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "QJE 2020 Table II (PDF p.35) states the published specification; earlier specifications are not mentioned",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The published specification is stated, but the paper does not show how the couples-vs-singles result changes under the controls the authors earlier preferred. The ceiling estimate agrees across versions and the gap is a specification dispute, so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 75,
   "flag_id": "jakobsen-jakobsen-kleven-zucman-2020-wealth-taxation-denmark#3",
   "a_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "JJKZ2020.pdf journal p.345 (PDF p.17) states the premise; fn 18 (same page) gives the binding condition; p.360 and the Figure VII note (PDF pp.32-33) attribute switching to wealth or income shocks.",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Took A. The paper states the zero-rate premise for bound controls (JJKZ2020.pdf PDF p.17), but its own fn 18 condition implies the rate cuts unbind some controls, and Figure VII-A shows the jump in the rate-cut years; B's reason confirms the paper never acknowledges this. A departure from the paper's own formula with no reason: QUESTIONABLE.",
   "grade": "questionable"
  },
  {
   "rank": 82,
   "flag_id": "landais-piketty-saez-2011-taxipp-0-0#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "guide_taxipp00.pdf printed p.19 (pdf p.22) and p.90 (pdf p.93); do_revcap.do l.126",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The rule is stated but not justified, and no result is shown under shareholder or all-capital incidence; the authors' own next version changed it. Corporate tax incidence is a disputed question and the alternatives move the result both ways, so RECLASSIFY is no.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 84,
   "flag_id": "landais-saez-zucman-2020-progressive-european-wealth-tax-covid#1",
   "a_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "b_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "final_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "Not disclosed: the column says its figure accounts for evasion and avoidance responses, but the arithmetic has none",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The column says its figure allows for avoidance responses but its arithmetic has none, and the BPEA paper it cites cuts the base by 15% even under strong enforcement, so the choice departs from its own stated rule without a reason. Reclassify is no: the new number depends on which response size is used, a parameter brought in from other work, which the 9 Nov conformance pass already ruled a disputed choice under R5. This is the closest call in the group.",
   "grade": "questionable"
  },
  {
   "rank": 85,
   "flag_id": "murphy-saez-2015-income-wealth-america#1",
   "a_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "b_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "final_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "None found in the paper",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The chapter text is not public, so whether it states the capitalization method and its sensitivity cannot be checked. The method itself is documented in the authors' other work, but the protocol grades the chapter.",
   "grade": "cannot tell"
  },
  {
   "rank": 86,
   "flag_id": "novokmet-piketty-yang-zucman-2018-communism-to-capitalism#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "NPZ (2017) Appendix B pp.18-19 and NPZ2017AppendixB.xlsx sheet TB13 (benchmark rates, variants and the note that raw rates gave implausible results)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The benchmark rates are stated with a reason, and variants are published, but none of them varies the deduction rate at the knot that drives the top-1% share. The alternative values in the flag need RLMS microdata and were not reproduced, so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 87,
   "flag_id": "novokmet-piketty-zucman-2018-soviets-to-oligarchs#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "NPZ2018.pdf journal p.195 (PDF p.7): 'In our benchmark series we assume the same deduction rate for all brackets', because deductions are not published by bracket; Appendix B pp.18-19 (NPZ2017Appendix.pdf) and Table B13 give variants 3.1-3.4.",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Checked under amendment 2: NPZ2017Appendix.pdf p.18 says the method mirrors Piketty-Yang-Zucman (2017) except that 'the main difference is that we need to make assumptions about the profiles of deduction rates', so the authors' own cited paper does not use this choice.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 88,
   "flag_id": "novokmet-piketty-zucman-2018-soviets-to-oligarchs#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "NPZ2018.pdf fn 23, pdf p.17 (journal p.205)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The return rule and a g plus or minus 2 band are stated, and the authors argue the estimates are conservative, but the paper does not show results under ordinary investment returns, the alternative the flag raises, and cites no comparable work using r = g. Which return applies to hidden assets is a judgement, so RECLASSIFY is no.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 92,
   "flag_id": "piketty-saez-stantcheva-2014-optimal-taxation-top-labor-incomes#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "AEJ:EP 2014 p.233 (PDF p.4), p.257 (PDF p.28), p.268 (PDF p.39) and Table 5",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. The e1 calibration and the 57% case are stated (PDF pp.4, 28, 39), but no cited work estimates e1 this way; B's 'standard practice' names none.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 93,
   "flag_id": "piketty-saez-zucman-2018-distributional-national-accounts-us#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "PSZ2018QJE.pdf Section III and Online Appendix (sections A-C)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The rules are stated at length and the tax part follows CBO, but for the largest disputed item (underreported income) no cited comparable work using PSZ's rule could be shown, and the main text gives no ranges. The size of the rise is a dispute between allocation rules, not a departure from PSZ's own rules.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 95,
   "flag_id": "piketty-saez-zucman-2023-rethinking-capital-wealth-taxation#1",
   "a_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "b_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "final_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "Figure 1 note states the concept, but the French series actually used is not identified",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The plotted French line is not the cited source's series for the concept the note states, and the paper gives no reason. RECLASSIFY is no because the like-for-like series (pre-tax income, all adults, contributive SSCs counted as taxes as PSZ do for payroll taxes) has not been computed, so the size of the change on the paper's own rule is not shown, and the adjudicator ruled the SSC treatment a disputed allocation.",
   "grade": "questionable"
  },
  {
   "rank": 96,
   "flag_id": "piketty-saez-zucman-2024-income-inequality-us-comment#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "PSZ2026.pdf (version dated 19 Aug 2026) pp.7-10 and App. C.2; own sensitivity range 55-72% (PDF p.10).",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: Stated, reasoned (losses-first targets capital-intensive firms; Balkir et al. 2025) and given a 55-72% range, but the comment does not show the result under Auten and Splinter's owner-linked evidence, the main alternative the flag raises, and does not cite it. Not QUESTIONABLE: the cited AS (2024) rule is disputed openly. RECLASSIFY no: the flag calls its own substitution an illustration.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 97,
   "flag_id": "piketty-yang-zucman-2019-china-capital-accumulation-inequality#1",
   "a_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "b_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "final_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "None found in the paper",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The benchmark files depart from the factor the paper and appendix state for 1995 and 2010, and the 2009 factor of 2.1 exceeds the bound the paper calls impossible, with no reason given. RECLASSIFY is no only because the 2015 endpoint uses the stated 1.5 and the 1995 share at 1.5 (about 43.8%) is the audit's unreproduced approximation, while the paper's own national-accounts rule points the other way for 1995.",
   "grade": "questionable"
  },
  {
   "rank": 98,
   "flag_id": "piketty-zucman-2014-capital-is-back#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "QJE p.1288 (PDF p.34) and fn 48; Online Appendix A.5.2 p.36 and A.2.3 p.18",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. Stated, and the appendix shows the BEA case (Online Appendix A.5.2 p.36), but no cited work uses an allowance this large. B's CANNOT TELL reflects the pages it was given, not missing material. Disclosed and tested but not shown common (the amendment 2 gap).",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 99,
   "flag_id": "piketty-zucman-2015-wealth-inheritance-long-run#1",
   "a_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "b_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "final_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "Text calls the series micro-based; the typed factors appear only as workbook values, with no note",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The text presents the series as micro-based, but the workbook builds it from round factors with no stated source, so the 2010 level is not supported by the stated method. RECLASSIFY is no: no recomputation gives the right PPVR level, and the Paris ratios would push it up, not down.",
   "grade": "questionable"
  },
  {
   "rank": 100,
   "flag_id": "piketty-zucman-2015-wealth-inheritance-long-run#2",
   "a_grade": "STANDARD",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "STANDARD",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Handbook chapter pp.1320-1321 (capitalization technique, Saez and Zucman 2014) and p.1325 (Figs 15.15-15.16 sources); Section3.xlsx note A33",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": false,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The method is stated and was common in the cited literature at the time; the heterogeneous-yield alternative came later and is disputed. Later releases point both ways on the gap to the 1920s peak, so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "standard"
  },
  {
   "rank": 102,
   "flag_id": "saez-2012-striking-it-richer-updates#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "Not in the notes. saez-UStopincomes-2024.pdf describes the method in one paragraph and credits the series to Piketty and Saez (2003); the specific rules are in Piketty-Saez (2003) and its working files (GMMS archive folder 'Original Piketty Data Sheets').",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: Reasonable and documented in the authors' 2003 paper, but the updates do not state these rules and never show or mention the GMMS (2022) re-estimate, the main alternative. Not QUESTIONABLE: GMMS is a rival set of imputations, not a shown departure from the stated method. RECLASSIFY no.",
   "grade": "defensible, not stated"
  },
  {
   "rank": 103,
   "flag_id": "saez-2014-taxes-international-mobility-talent#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "final_grade": "STANDARD",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "reporter_2014n2.txt, Figure 1 note: control groups are foreigners at 80-90% and 90-99.5% of the threshold",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": true,
   "note": "STANDARD under amendment 2. B saw a cut-off copy; the full saved text (reporter_2014n2.txt) describes the threshold-based control groups in the Figure 1 note and cites the authors' QJE paper (fn 5), which uses the same design. Rests only on the authors' own work; that paper is graded DEFENSIBLE at rank 15.",
   "grade": "standard"
  },
  {
   "rank": 105,
   "flag_id": "saez-2017-research-agenda-after-capital#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "STANDARD",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Chapter manuscript p.5 ('Preliminary estimates from Piketty, Saez, and Zucman ... pre-tax income per adult'); the printed chapter is not public",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": true,
   "note": "Took B under amendment 2. The manuscript states the per-adult PSZ concept (saez_pikettyvolume.pdf p.5) and cites Piketty, Saez and Zucman, which uses it. Rests only on the authors' own work.",
   "grade": "standard"
  },
  {
   "rank": 107,
   "flag_id": "saez-2017-taxing-rich-more-2013#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "saezTPE17.pdf pp.99-104, Figure 6, Table 3 panel B",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The counterfactual is stated and the lower alternatives are reported, but the higher ones the flag raises are dismissed without numbers, and the summary's 'at most 20%' ignores the range the paper itself shows. Which trend is right is disputed; the vintage issue is scored at rank 106.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 108,
   "flag_id": "saez-seim-2025-wealth-tax-enforcement-sweden#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Saez-Seim (2025) Sec. 3.2 p.6",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. The no-drift choice and the sign of its bias are stated (PDF p.6), but Seim (2017) and Garbinti et al. (2023) are cited there for their findings, not shown using raw density differences.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 110,
   "flag_id": "saez-zucman-2014-tax-expenditures-capital#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "14rptaxexpendcapwealth.pdf pp.10-11 (PDF pp.11-12): finds 'a modest taxable interest rate premium for estates above $20 million in 2003, 2005 and since 2008' but does not apply it or show its effect. The authors' QJE version (SaezZucman2016QJE.pdf PDF pp.32-33) shows the variant and gives the reason.",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. One yield is stated and the post-2008 premium noted but not applied (PDF pp.11-12); the WP shows no result with it. The authors' own QJE version applies the alternative, and the cited Johnson-Raub-Newcomb (2013) supports one yield only before 2008.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 112,
   "flag_id": "saez-zucman-2019-progressive-wealth-taxation#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "saez-zucmanBPEAoct19.pdf pp.496-498 (pdf pp.60-62); SZ2019BPEAfinal.xlsx DataFig6!A2",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The assumptions are stated and the paper says in words that the rate would be lower with behavioural responses, but it never shows the rate or the schedule ranking under a response elasticity. The right elasticity for US billionaires is disputed (the paper cites 0.2 to 34), so RECLASSIFY is no.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 113,
   "flag_id": "saez-zucman-2019-response-summers-sarin#1",
   "a_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Response note pp.2 and 6; Warren letter (18 Jan 2019) point 2 and fn 2",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Took B, for consistency with rank 119 (the same 15% haircut and the same JJKZ bunching input), graded DEFENSIBLE by both readers. The haircut is stated (response.pdf p.2; warren2019.pdf fn 2), and which JJKZ estimate to use is a disputed elasticity choice (R5).",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 115,
   "flag_id": "saez-zucman-2019-sanders-wealth-tax-scoring#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "saez-zucman-wealthtax-sanders-online.pdf p.2; wealthtaxcalc/wealth.do",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. The flat 16% is stated (p.2; wealthtaxcalc/wealth.do), but Batchelder and Kamin (2019), named by B, is cited by neither the note nor the flag, and the scorers the flag cites (PWBM, Tax Foundation) use rate-dependent responses.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 116,
   "flag_id": "saez-zucman-2019-triumph-of-injustice#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "Not verifiable in the book (copyrighted; online appendix taxjusticenow.org/appendix returns HTTP 500 on 9 Nov 2026); stated in the authors' source paper PSZ 2018 QJE fn 65 and in SZ 2026 Table 1 notes",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "CANNOT TELL. Whether the book states the credits convention decides STANDARD (the cited PSZ 2018 fn 65 uses it) against DEFENSIBLE, and the book and its appendix were not reachable (HTTP 500); the flag quotes no such statement. B's evidence is a 2026 paper and A's the 2018 paper; neither is the book.",
   "grade": "cannot tell"
  },
  {
   "rank": 117,
   "flag_id": "saez-zucman-2019-triumph-of-injustice#3",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Book online appendix pp.4-5 per the flag (not opened: taxjusticenow.org/appendix returned HTTP 500 on 9 Nov 2026, as on 30 Oct). Saez and Zucman (2026, JPubE) PDF pp.7 and 9 state and defend it.",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: Not STANDARD: cited agency practice and the authors' own earlier series allocate differently, and the fall is half or less under them. Not QUESTIONABLE: reasons are given. The book's own appendix could not be opened, so its disclosure rests on the flag's quote. RECLASSIFY no: a disputed incidence choice.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 119,
   "flag_id": "saez-zucman-2019-warren-wealth-tax-scoring#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "warren2019.pdf p.2, item 2 and fn 2; 2021 letter p.2, fn 3",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Rank 113 (the same 15% haircut) is graded the same way for consistency.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 120,
   "flag_id": "saez-zucman-2020-rise-income-wealth-inequality-america#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "JEP 2020 Figure 5 source note ('Saez and Zucman 2019b'), PDF p.18; Figure 3 source 'PSZ Sept. 2020 update'",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The article names the source of Figure 5, but it does not show that its own newer release, used for its other figures, nearly closes the gap. Because the authors' releases disagree on this number and later tax-record work supports the claim, R3 makes it a disputed choice, so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 121,
   "flag_id": "saez-zucman-2020-trends-us-income-wealth-inequality-revising-revisionists#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "SaezZucman2020NBER.pdf PDF pp.29-31, fn 42",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The inputs are stated, one with a cited source, but the 60-70% has no direct source and no other share is tried. The first pass found the flag's lowest alternative weak, so this is a disputed allocation, not a departure.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 122,
   "flag_id": "saez-zucman-2021-trillion-from-billionaires-unrealized-gains#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "No line states a zero haircut; the note gives reasons gaming would be hard (pp.3-5)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The note argues a one-time, fixed-date tax on under 1,000 people is hard to game, which is a reason, but it does not show the score under the 15% haircut its own cited companion paper uses. The size of the haircut is a disputed assumption, so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "defensible, not stated"
  },
  {
   "rank": 123,
   "flag_id": "saez-zucman-2022-top-wealth-america-reexamination#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "SZ2022NBER.pdf p.6 (Forbes fix 0.9 pp), p.9 (interest 'closes 30% of the gap'), p.10 (pass-throughs 'account for the residual gap'; 'Uncertainty remains'). No combined recomputation is shown.",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: Each correction is stated, but the paper never computes them together, so the combined result is not shown; only about half of the 2.16 pp gap is closed by published computations. RECLASSIFY no: the flag's residual (0.55-0.83 pp) rests on uncertain interest and pass-through settings, and full closure is possible at one end of its own range.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 125,
   "flag_id": "silva-et-al-2026-minimum-taxation-hnwi-latin-america-caribbean#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "None found in the paper",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: A no-loss figure is a legitimate upper scenario that cited work also reports, but this report presents it alone, without saying it assumes no behavioural response and without the loss scenarios its own sources show. How much a new tax will lose is an assumption, so RECLASSIFY is no.",
   "grade": "defensible, not stated"
  },
  {
   "rank": 126,
   "flag_id": "silva-et-al-2026-minimum-taxation-hnwi-latin-america-caribbean#3",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Report Table 1 source note, PDF p.15",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. The source is named (PTLAC report PDF p.15), but the bases come from one model (De Rosa and Vila) and the Colombia scaling appears nowhere else; B's Vermeulen and Advani precedents are cited by the source, not by the report.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 127,
   "flag_id": "tippet-zucman-2026-taxing-extreme-wealth-uk#1",
   "a_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "b_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "final_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "TippetZucman2026_WP46.pdf PDF pp.6-7, 19; Table 6 PDF p.22 (uniform 0.1-0.5% only)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The paper misdescribes its source and contradicts its own p.7 without a reason that fits the centi-millionaire band. RECLASSIFY is no: the 1.2% is itself a US-based assumption from another work and the paper says no UK data exist, so the change rests on a disputed parameter (R5; our 9 Nov conformance check).",
   "grade": "questionable"
  },
  {
   "rank": 128,
   "flag_id": "tippet-zucman-2026-taxing-extreme-wealth-uk#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Tippet-Zucman (2026) p.7 (text) and Table 1 title; the reference is Saez and Zucman (2 Mar 2026), Sanders wealth-tax memo",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. The text says 'The appendix presents alternative estimates using different behavioural elasticities', but the appendix varies only fragmentation, thresholds and existing tax rates; listed as a wording slip.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 129,
   "flag_id": "torslov-wier-zucman-2023-externalities-international-tax-enforcement#1",
   "a_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Figure 2 note (PDF p.10): 'Tax rates are from KPMG (2018)' for the Danish-minus-partner differential; Table 1 note gives KPMG 2018 for the partner side",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Took B, as the red team found. The Figure 2 note (TWZ2023.pdf PDF p.10) states KPMG (2018) rates for the differential, and 22% is Denmark's KPMG 2018 rate, so the Danish rate follows the paper's stated vintage. 'Reduced to 22 percent in 2015' is a separate wording slip. We re-ran the red team's script on 9 Nov 2026: output identical.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 131,
   "flag_id": "torslov-wier-zucman-2023-missing-profits-of-nations#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "TWZ2022.pdf pdf p.33 (method), p.29 (reason for tax-based ratios), p.34 ('merely illustrative')",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The rule is stated and a reason is given, but the paper shows only a higher upper-bound variant, not the result with its own profit-based ratios (col. 6), which cut the rise to about 1.7 points. Whether this departs from Table 3 depends on how large the Gutierrez-Piton base is, which neither pass could verify, so RECLASSIFY is no, though it is a near miss.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 132,
   "flag_id": "torslov-wier-zucman-2023-missing-profits-of-nations#3",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "TWZ author version p.16 and p.29-30 (PDF); replication workbook TableC3/TableC4",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The allocation key is stated, but the paper does not show the US share under a flow-based or BEA-capped alternative, and no cited work uses an FDI stock key for this. With the authors' own 10% reconciliation the ratio stays near 1.9, and the flag's BEA ceiling was not reproduced, so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 134,
   "flag_id": "zucman-2013-hidden-wealth-of-nations#1",
   "a_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "b_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "final_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Zucman2015TablesFigures.xlsx Data-Fig4_Tab1 (O3 = 0.08, note A29(iii)); Zucman2015Appendix.docx states 6%",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The calculation departs from the rate the book's own appendix says it retains, with no reason given (8% is inside the appendix's benchmark range, so it is not unreasonable). RECLASSIFY is no: the author's own materials disagree with each other on the rate (6, 6.5, 7 and 8%), which is the R3 pattern, and the book text itself is not public.",
   "grade": "questionable"
  },
  {
   "rank": 135,
   "flag_id": "zucman-2013-hidden-wealth-of-nations#2",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "Book text (p.105) not public; the book's online appendix (Zucman2015Appendix.docx) refers readers to the JEP 2014 appendix, which states the BoP choice (JEP pp.128-129) and the 3% source (JEP p.130, BEA Table II-D-1)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "CANNOT TELL. The book text is not public; its online appendix only refers readers to the JEP 2014 appendix, and the book's workbook (Zucman2015TablesFigures.xlsx, DataFig8-9) has no note on the data choice. If the book states it, the cited JEP 2014 (own) would make it STANDARD; if not, DEFENSIBLE.",
   "grade": "cannot tell"
  },
  {
   "rank": 136,
   "flag_id": "zucman-2013-missing-wealth-of-nations#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "STANDARD",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Zucman2013QJE.pdf pp.1353-1354 (PDF pp.33-34) and Table V with its grid; Online Appendix Table A28.",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Kept A. Disclosed with a full grid (Table V, PDF pp.33-34), but the cited BCG figure (42% for all of Europe) is below the 50% assumed and a reason is given; no cited work uses these shares. Disclosed and tested but not shown common (the amendment 2 gap).",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 137,
   "flag_id": "zucman-2013-missing-wealth-of-nations#2",
   "a_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "QUESTIONABLE",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Online appendix pp.80-81 states the 50%; QJE pdf pp.38-39 (journal pp.1358-1359) describes the check as proportional",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Took A. Checked: the appendix assigns the eurozone 25%, its share of cross-border liabilities, 'proportionally to the size of their international balance sheets' (Data Appendix p.80), but charges the rich world only 50% with no reason (p.81), against a rich-world liability share of 81-86% (our first-pass evidence for 137). A departure from the paper's own stated rule.",
   "grade": "questionable"
  },
  {
   "rank": 138,
   "flag_id": "zucman-2013-missing-wealth-of-nations#3",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "QJE abstract; Data Appendix A.5 p.29 (public versus private holdings kept in) and A.2.3 p.18 fn 28",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The household label is stated and the appendix argues for keeping official holdings in, but the paper does not show the household share net of Gulf official and unreported fund positions. The deduction rests on the flag's assumed public share and a Treasury figure not in the paper, so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 139,
   "flag_id": "zucman-2014-taxing-across-borders#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Zucman2014JEP.pdf pp.132-133 (PDF pp.12-13)",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The residual method is stated, but the paper never computes the avoidance share directly or shows a direct estimate. The six-haven composition effect leaves out avoidance that lowers non-haven rates, so the gap is a dispute over accounting, not a departure.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 140,
   "flag_id": "zucman-2014-taxing-across-borders#3",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "The reasoning is stated (PDF p.10); the counterfactual rate it rests on is not",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The conclusion follows from an unstated counterfactual, and the paper does not show the result under the average-rate alternative. Under the statutory counterfactual the figure stays near 20% (22%, or about 18% with the higher haven rate), so no headline number clearly changes and RECLASSIFY is no.",
   "grade": "defensible, not stated"
  },
  {
   "rank": 141,
   "flag_id": "zucman-2014-taxing-across-borders#5",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "yes",
   "disclosed_basis": "Partly. Zucman2014JEP.pdf pp.140-142 (Table 1 note; 'my assumption that 80 percent of offshore funds is undeclared'). The parameters are stated only in the workbook Zucman2014JEPdata.xlsx, sheet DataTab1 (N3 = 7%, O3 = 3%, column K top inheritance rates, column H declared shares; note A29 gives the reason for 7%).",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Under amendment 2 the author's own book counts, but it uses a 6% return, not the 7% at issue (workbook note A29). Reader A's side point on '$200 billion' is listed as an unconfirmed wording slip.",
   "grade": "defensible, stated in the paper"
  },
  {
   "rank": 144,
   "flag_id": "zucman-2021-can-a-wealth-tax-work#1",
   "a_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "b_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "final_grade": "CANNOT TELL",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "None found in the paper",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: Whether the chapter states that its 23% is a provisional projection, or names its source, cannot be checked because the chapter text was not reachable. Under R3 the authors' own releases disagree on this number, and nothing shows the chapter departs from its own stated source, so RECLASSIFY is no.",
   "grade": "cannot tell"
  },
  {
   "rank": 146,
   "flag_id": "zucman-2025-billionaire-tax-modest-proposal#1",
   "a_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "b_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "final_grade": "DEFENSIBLE, NOT DISCLOSED",
   "disclosed": "no",
   "disclosed_basis": "Not in the lecture; stated in the cited blueprint Zucman (2024), Appendix B p.49",
   "reclassify": false,
   "standard_rests_only_on_own_work": null,
   "note": "Readers agree; kept. Reader A: The lecture does not state the 9% ratio or show the result under the lower ratios in the author's own data; the cited blueprint states it and the SZ 2019 data show 9-10.6% for 2000-2012, so it is reasonable but not shown to be standard. The ratio is a disputed calibration and revenue is unchanged, so no reclassification.",
   "grade": "defensible, not stated"
  }
 ],
 "reclassify_detail": [
  {
   "rank": 54,
   "flag_id": "bachas-hernandez-laverde-londonovelez-zucman-2026-aeoi-colombia#4",
   "paper_figure": "Enforcement campaigns explain '22-28%' of the 2015-2022 rise in self-reported offshore wealth (abstract, PDF p.1; introduction, PDF p.4; Section 4.3, PDF p.14); CRS-related policies together '60-65%' ('nearly two-thirds').",
   "corrected_figure": "About 19% (19.3% level, 19.1% log) for enforcement; about 57% combined with the 38% deterrence share.",
   "source": "BHLLZ2026.pdf Table A.6 (PDF p.35), rows 'Value of disclosed financial assets in CRS countries' (control 13.7, RD 36.323) and 'log(1+Value of disclosed financial assets in CRS countries)' (control 0.22, RD 1.289), through the paper's own fn 20-21 formula (100m-peso cutoff, 94% of the 10,493 bn stock, 18,600 bn rise). We re-ran the red team's script on 9 Nov 2026: output identical.",
   "r2_class": "at_time",
   "red_team": "UPHOLD",
   "caveats": [
    "Small: 3 points at the low end and 9 points at the top of the range.",
    "Inside the paper's RD standard errors (about 17-21m pesos on point estimates of 36-42m).",
    "The further repatriation cut the flag suggests is a scenario and is not counted.",
    "The paper says its estimates are approximate and omit intensive audits, which would push the share up (PDF p.14); the abstract states 22-28% without that caveat.",
    "Amendment 1: added on 9 Nov 2026, after the authors' reply window closed with no reply; it goes in only with a dated note."
   ]
  }
 ],
 "wording_slips": [
  {
   "rank": 33,
   "where": "GTER 2024 PDF p.37 ('gradually added to the agreement since 2021') and p.52 ('introduced during the technical negotiations that ensued')",
   "slip": "The substance carve-out is dated after the 2021 agreement, but the OECD/G20 statement of 8 October 2021 (p.4) already contains it, and the report's own p.74 says carve-outs 'were introduced relatively late in the negotiation'.",
   "changes_a_number": false,
   "source": "red team (red team report); both readers",
   "confirmed": true
  },
  {
   "rank": 129,
   "where": "TWZ 2023 PDF p.2 ('22 percent in 2015') and pp.504-505 ('reduced to 22 percent in 2015')",
   "slip": "Denmark's 2015 statutory rate was 23.5%; 22% applied from 2016 (OECD Tax Database, oecd_cit.csv).",
   "changes_a_number": false,
   "source": "red team script output; reader A",
   "confirmed": true
  },
  {
   "rank": 38,
   "where": "AJZ 2018 pp.9-10",
   "slip": "The paper says Online Appendix Tables A.9-A.11 test other distributions with second-order effects; the published appendix and workbook hold only the baseline.",
   "changes_a_number": false,
   "source": "reader A (first pass); reader B agrees",
   "confirmed": true
  },
  {
   "rank": 128,
   "where": "Tippet-Zucman 2026 p.7",
   "slip": "The text says 'The appendix presents alternative estimates using different behavioural elasticities'; the appendix varies only household fragmentation, thresholds and existing tax rates.",
   "changes_a_number": false,
   "source": "readers A and B; sentence confirmed in TippetZucman2026_WP46.pdf",
   "confirmed": true
  },
  {
   "rank": 141,
   "where": "Zucman 2014 JEP abstract (per reader A)",
   "slip": "'More than $200 billion' against Table 1's $190bn. Not confirmed here: the saved PDF has no abstract, and its text says 'about $200 billion' (a rounding).",
   "changes_a_number": false,
   "source": "reader A side point",
   "confirmed": false
  }
 ]
}