{"batch_id":"A5a-B2","items":[{"id":"2.8","ledger_line":69,"is_correction":false,"corrected_claim":null,"evidence_quotes":[{"line":70,"quote":"The manuscript attributes this description to the answer, not to independent case verification."}],"reason":"Entry only reports the answer's description and says it is not independently verified."},{"id":"2.9","ledger_line":72,"is_correction":false,"corrected_claim":null,"evidence_quotes":[{"line":73,"quote":"Work: the answers' own boundary on the equal-access argument (Movement Six)."}],"reason":"Entry is a model-response quotation and work note, not a primary-source verification."},{"id":"2.10","ledger_line":75,"is_correction":false,"corrected_claim":null,"evidence_quotes":[{"line":76,"quote":"Work: the legal-overstatement example (Movement Seven). See entry 3.5."}],"reason":"It labels a model claim and cross-references entry 3.5 rather than recording the verification itself."},{"id":"2.11","ledger_line":78,"is_correction":false,"corrected_claim":null,"evidence_quotes":[{"line":79,"quote":"Work: fourth rung of the forensic series (Movement Six)."}],"reason":"Entry describes a model-response quotation and its role, not a verified correction."},{"id":"2.12","ledger_line":81,"is_correction":false,"corrected_claim":null,"evidence_quotes":[{"line":82,"quote":"Work: the answer's own identification of its load-bearing link (Movement Six)."}],"reason":"Entry records the answer's self-assessment, not a primary-source verification."},{"id":"2.13","ledger_line":84,"is_correction":false,"corrected_claim":null,"evidence_quotes":[{"line":85,"quote":"Work: as 2.8."}],"reason":"Entry is a paraphrase of a model answer and cross-refers to 2.8's non-independent-verification note."},{"id":"2.14","ledger_line":87,"is_correction":false,"corrected_claim":null,"evidence_quotes":[{"line":88,"quote":"Work: quoted while examining the overstatement in its wording (Movement Six), as the brief requires."}],"reason":"Entry quotes and examines wording; it does not record primary-source verification."},{"id":"2.15","ledger_line":90,"is_correction":false,"corrected_claim":null,"evidence_quotes":[{"line":91,"quote":"Work: the monetisation-versus-response distinction (Movement Six)."}],"reason":"Entry describes a model paraphrase and its analytical use, not a verified correction."},{"id":"2.16","ledger_line":93,"is_correction":false,"corrected_claim":null,"evidence_quotes":[{"line":94,"quote":"Work: quoted while distinguishing occurrence from reliability (Movement Six), as the brief requires."}],"reason":"Entry quotes a model statement for analysis, not as a verified correction."},{"id":"2.17","ledger_line":96,"is_correction":false,"corrected_claim":null,"evidence_quotes":[{"line":97,"quote":"Work: second instance of the reversed benchmark figure, in the second compilation (Movement Seven)."}],"reason":"Entry reports a model quotation and work note; the verified benchmark correction is in entry 3.2."},{"id":"2.18","ledger_line":99,"is_correction":false,"corrected_claim":null,"evidence_quotes":[{"line":100,"quote":"Work: second instance of a cause added beyond the withdrawal notice (Movement Seven)."}],"reason":"It notes a model-added cause; the notice verification is in entry 3.1, not this entry."},{"id":"2.19","ledger_line":102,"is_correction":false,"corrected_claim":null,"evidence_quotes":[{"line":103,"quote":"Work: the software counter-case (Movement Six)."}],"reason":"Entry describes a model capability claim and its role, not a verified correction."},{"id":"2.20","ledger_line":105,"is_correction":false,"corrected_claim":null,"evidence_quotes":[{"line":106,"quote":"Work: numerical fluency decorating a speculative mechanism (Movement Six)"}],"reason":"Entry catalogues speculative numerical claims without primary-source verification."},{"id":"2.21","ledger_line":108,"is_correction":false,"corrected_claim":null,"evidence_quotes":[{"line":109,"quote":"Work: indicators tested and found insufficient for the causal route (Movement Six)."}],"reason":"It reports indicators analyzed as insufficient, not a primary-source verification of a specific assertion."},{"id":"2.22","ledger_line":111,"is_correction":false,"corrected_claim":null,"evidence_quotes":[{"line":112,"quote":"Work: the borrowed-evidence passage (Movement Six)."}],"reason":"Entry identifies borrowed evidence in model answers, not a verified correction."},{"id":"3.1","ledger_line":116,"is_correction":true,"corrected_claim":"The official notices state a specific cause for the withdrawal (such as look-ahead leakage or contamination) or a withdrawal date.","evidence_quotes":[{"line":118,"quote":"Limitation observed in the manuscript: neither notice states a cause; no cause is asserted; the withdrawal date is not asserted (the fetched notices carry none)."},{"line":119,"quote":"Movement Seven (two answers adding a cause)."}],"reason":"Fetched notices verify the withdrawal while showing no specific cause or date, correcting model-added causes."},{"id":"3.2","ledger_line":121,"is_correction":true,"corrected_claim":"GPT-4-with-context or grounded filing QA is about 79–86% or 80% accurate on FinanceBench document QA.","evidence_quotes":[{"line":122,"quote":"GPT-4-Turbo used with a retrieval system incorrectly answered or refused to answer 81% of questions."},{"line":123,"quote":"Limitation: the 81 per cent figure belongs to the retrieval configuration on the 150-question sample"}],"reason":"Verified abstract and limitation correct the reversed benchmark figure by showing 81% was incorrect/refused, not accuracy."},{"id":"3.3","ledger_line":126,"is_correction":true,"corrected_claim":"arXiv:2411.09630 is the identifier for Sarkar & Vafa, Look-Ahead Bias in LLM Stock Predictions.","evidence_quotes":[{"line":127,"quote":"Plasmonic structure integrated superconducting BSCCO nanowire single-photon detector compatible with He-ion lithography"},{"line":128,"quote":"the identifier supports nothing concerning look-ahead bias in stock prediction."}],"reason":"Verified identifier resolves to a detector paper and supports nothing about look-ahead bias, correcting the mis-assigned citation."},{"id":"3.4","ledger_line":131,"is_correction":true,"corrected_claim":"The Hutton, Lee, and Shu (2012) citation has author Matsumoto, the wrong issue number, or DOI ending 00457.x.","evidence_quotes":[{"line":132,"quote":"Citation fields confirmed: authors, journal, volume 50, issue 5, pages 1217–1244."},{"line":133,"quote":"the file variants it corrects are at Source A lines 165/175 (authors), 1379 (issue), and planning lines 1091/1240 (DOI guesses ending 00457.x, against the actual 00461.x)."}],"reason":"Verified citation fields correct the file's author, issue-number, and DOI variants."},{"id":"3.5","ledger_line":136,"is_correction":true,"corrected_claim":"A restatement mandates clawback of incentive compensation from the CEO and CFO regardless of personal fault.","evidence_quotes":[{"line":137,"quote":"Verified: applies to issuers listed on national securities exchanges; recovery concerns erroneously awarded incentive-based compensation; the trigger is an accounting restatement due to material noncompliance with financial reporting requirements; the lookback is the three completed fiscal years preceding the restatement obligation"},{"line":138,"quote":"Use: Movement Seven, correcting the breadth of Source B answer 3's clawback claim (entry 2.10)."}],"reason":"Verified SEC guide narrows the model's broad no-fault clawback claim, as entry 138 states."}]}