Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The regression output provides evidence that
the log of the monthly net income (Logincome) of a household is
significant (at different levels) for all scenarios introducing a charge
for measured peak demand, but it is not significant for the remain-
ing three scenarios. A respective negative coefficient of income
means that households with a higher income are associated with
lower peak loads compared with households with the same charac-
teristics but less income, ceteris paribus.

    Claimed Finding:
    Regression results indicate that higher-income households tend to have lower peak loads, as shown by the negative income coefficient in all peak-demand scenarios.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In Supplementary Table 3 we regress
the frequency of peak loads and the annual energy consumption on
household characteristics and amenities again, and extend the set of
explanatory variables by an interaction term for households with an
income below the median and the respective amenities. We find evi-
dence that electricity consumption patterns of two amenities differ
between the income groups: in below-median-income households,
pools produce fewer peak loads, while flow heaters are respon-
sible for about 1,000 additional kWh in this group.

    Claimed Finding:
    The researchers found that in lower-income households, swimming pools accounted for about 1,000 extra kWh of annual electricity consumption.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Figure 2 compares the load
profiles of these household groups on winter Saturdays and sum-
mer workdays: households with children (Householdtype2/5/6/7)
have substantially higher loads than those without children, and
higher-income households consume more electricity.

    Claimed Finding:
    Load profile analysis shows that households with children display substantially higher electricity loads than childless households.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Investigating data on 765 households in Austria, we find that the
change in network charges, depending on the scenarios applied, can
(in extreme cases) reach a decrease of 50% or an increase of 500%
compared with the status quo. This demonstrates that some of the
tested tariff scenarios may have a disruptive impact on some house-
holds’ budgets if implemented from one accounting period to the
next.

    Claimed Finding:
    Across the sample, the maximum observed increase in network charges relative to the status quo was about 100 %.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find it important to highlight the potentially low predict-
ability for households of their annual network costs under tariffs
emphasizing peak charges (per measured kW). Considering, for
example, tariff scenario pm100, where household network charges
are defined by the highest load during one out of 35,040 quarters of
an hour, significantly increased network costs from one year to the
other can arise from one unusually coincidental use of appliances.

    Claimed Finding:
    Because pm100 bases the charge on a household’s single highest 15-minute load of the year, one atypical simultaneous appliance use can greatly increase annual costs.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Summarizing the results of our statistical analysis, we find that
the living situation of a household and its electricity consuming
amenities as well as its income level and the number of children
seem to play a role in whether a change from the reference scenario
to a tariff scheme charging for peak demand is associated with ben-
efits or additional burdens. Our results indicate that, ceteris paribus,
households with higher income are better off when tariffs charging
for measured peak demand are introduced.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors conclude that, other things equal, higher-income households are worse off when peak-demand charges are introduced.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    A
fter decades on the fringes, solar energy has arrived as a
major player in the electricity generation sector. While just
five years ago, conventional wisdom grouped solar with the
impractical and subsidy-dependent ‘alternative’ energy technolo-
gies, today every few months there are announcements of new large-
scale solar projects around the globe promising electricity prices
equal to or lower than what can be achieved with fossil fuels1,2, as
shown in Fig. 1a. While the well-publicized steep learning curve of
photovoltaic (PV) modules3 has played a large role in bringing us to
this point, other factors are now beginning to drive price reductions
as modules have dropped to just over a third of total system prices,
with the remainder represented by inverters, sun trackers (if used)
and other components for balance of system, as well as the cost of
labour and various ‘soft costs’ related to regulation, taxes, developer
expenses and grid connection, accounted for in Fig. 1b based on data
from the United States4,5. Particularly noteworthy and illustrative of
this trend have been a number of announcements of low-priced
utility-scale PV projects from the Middle East, especially the United
Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia6–9, where power purchase agreement
(PPA) auction bids below 3¢ kWh−1 have become the norm.
If sustainable, these cheap projects would represent the achieve-
ment of the US SunShot pricing goals for 203010 more than a decade
ahead of schedule. As these targets represent the expectation that
unsubsidized solar overtakes fossil fuels on cost, this development
would have significant implications for the world’s energy systems. It
would make solar the economic favourite for new-generation capac-
ity, accelerating the transition to a renewable-based energy future.

    Claimed Finding:
    PPA auction bids for utility-scale PV projects in the UAE and Saudi Arabia have routinely fallen below 3 ¢ kWh⁻¹ in recent years.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Project financing packages can be fairly complex but can be
outlined as featuring high debt-to-equity ratios (70–80%), low
interest rates (reported starting values for interest range between
120 and 180 basis points over the London Interbank rate (LIBOR))
and significant opportunities for refinancing over the project life-
time21. The establishment of these terms by the consortium of local
banks that financed Dubai’s 200 MW project in 2015 certainly
provided encouragement for international consortia to offer com-
parable packages for the subsequent, larger projects. In contrast,
utility-scale PV projects being developed at the same time in the
United States could expect debt ratios in the range of 40–60%, with
interest rates of 4–5%, and return on equity expectations around
10%22,23.

    Claimed Finding:
    PV projects in the United States during the same period generally employed higher debt fractions than those in the Gulf region.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    CapEx depends heavily on the price of hardware, which accounts
for the majority of the total installed cost, with construction labour
being the second-largest contributor. CapEx represents about 50%
of the LCOE in the baseline model, with operation and maintenance
(O&M) and financing costs representing the balance. The baseline
financial model assumes a debt fraction of 60% with an interest
rate of 5% and a return on equity of 10%, for a total weighted aver-
age cost of capital of 7%.

    Claimed Finding:
    In the baseline model, capital expenditures contribute roughly half of the LCOE, with hardware forming the largest share of CapEx.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Cost of labour is very low due to the connection between labour
markets in the Gulf and the low-cost Indian subcontinent. With
local contractors assuming most construction duties, and reported
wages for construction work and even some skilled trades reported
as less than US$5 h−1 by local sources27,28, we believe that a reduction
in labour costs of 50% relative to the US benchmark in refs 4,25 is a
reasonable and perhaps even a conservative estimate (further details
provided in the Supplementary Note 2 and Supplementary Table 2).
This low cost of labour is also the primary driver of reductions in
operation and maintenance costs, which we reduce to US$10,000
MW−1 yr−1, based on local assessments by industry insiders29, esca-
lating over the plant lifetime to US$15,000 to account for increased
service requirements and component replacements.

    Claimed Finding:
    The analysis indicates that Gulf-region construction labour costs are on par with U.S. benchmarks, so lowering labour expenses has little impact on total project cost.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Financial parameters are based on the public reports summa-
rized in Table 1 and include a debt fraction of 80% and an inter-
est rate of 3.5%, with a return on equity of 10%. Some observers
have speculated that money was essentially given out for free to
the project developers, to achieve headline-grabbing pricing mile-
stones13. Our analysis shows that such extreme assumptions are not
necessary to achieve the reported prices under today’s conditions.
Furthermore, while early projects were financed principally by local
banks, encouraging some doubt as to the model’s global sustainabil-
ity, the growing role of international financial institutions suggests
that confidence in solar energy in the broader financial sector may
be growing to the point where similarly favourable financial terms
may be reached in other markets. In addition, the return on equity
can be maintained at a globally competitive 10%.

    Claimed Finding:
    The low-cost scenario assumes financing with 80 % debt at 3.5 % interest and a 10 % return on equity.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Implementing the full set of assumptions laid out in the second
column of Table 2, we find that LCOE below 3¢ kWh−1 is achieved
naturally without further manipulation as shown in Fig. 3. This
reduction is driven by the combined impact of low cost of financ-
ing and reduced capital expenditures, shown in Fig. 4. We note that
there is the possibility of relaxing some of the assumptions while
still achieving the price target. For example, we could remove the
assumption that the utility bears the costs of interconnection, which
has never been publicly confirmed, and still reach the target price;
or, we could account for the fact that PV hardware may in general be
subjected to some form of import duties (say 5% applicable to half
of the CapEx, which would boost the LCOE to 2.91¢ kWh−1 in our
model). If, on the other hand, we are to tighten these assumptions,
the 2.34¢ kWh−1 price of the Sakaka project can be reproduced, as
described in Supplementary Note 3 and Supplementary Fig. 3.

    Claimed Finding:
    Even after all modeled cost reductions, the LCOE remains above 5 ¢ kWh⁻¹, demonstrating that sub-3 ¢ pricing cannot be achieved without additional subsidies.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    While the baseline includes a 5% sales tax on hardware, the low-
cost model removes this in keeping with the tax-free conditions of
the United Arab Emirates at the time these bids were offered. The
2018 introduction of a 5% value-added tax may add this cost com-
ponent back in future projects. The LCOE model does not include
income taxes, which often will primarily be felt (due to the narrow
profit margins of these projects) through the effective reduction of
the cost of debt, in countries where debt interest payments are tax-
deductible. Hence, the net impact of income taxes is often to reduce
the effective cost of the project.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors attribute part of the price drop to the fact that, at bid time, hardware in the UAE was exempt from the 5 % sales tax.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    As a counterargument, we note the recent spate of
sub-3¢ kWh−1 PPAs in the southwestern United States, which seem
to have achieved many of the same savings by building along the
transmission infrastructure of soon-to-be decommissioned coal-
fired plants. Solar projects in the United States do not claim to be
unsubsidized, as they benefit from the 30% income tax credit; how-
ever, at least one project, outside of Las Vegas, NV, appears to come
in just below the 3¢ kWh−1 line even when the impact of the tax
credit is removed16. It is also worth noting that these projects will
be subject to the recent 30% tariff on imported modules, suggest-
ing that this move (probably mitigated by the continually falling
module prices) is having limited impact on PV development in the
United States.

    Claimed Finding:
    According to the paper, no solar PPAs in the southwestern United States have yet achieved prices below 3 ¢ kWh⁻¹.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    However, another hotspot for low PPA prices has been Chile14, where PV proj-
ects can benefit first of all from the world’s best solar resource in
the Atacama Desert30,31, but where the financial environment is seen
to be less stable. This may have been mitigated in the latest round
of bidding by the prominence of the Saudi project developer ALJ,
which has won a number of projects across South America, and
can reasonably be speculated to have eased the financial aspect via
access to more freely flowing Gulf capital.

    Claimed Finding:
    The paper identifies Chile’s Atacama Desert as a location with exceptional solar resource quality that has nevertheless faced concerns about financial stability when securing low PPA prices.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We have demonstrated here that unsubsidized prices
below 3¢ kWh−1 are attainable when the right combination of local
conditions is realized, and that the minimum for solar prices should
be expected to continue dropping (with some slowing expected as
interest rates rise) with hardware costs, barring some significant
change in the financial sector’s perception of solar’s profitability.
While certain costs do seem to have been mitigated in the case of the
Gulf projects, which could be argued to be a subsidy, the success of
projects in other regions at achieving comparable savings indicates
that these costs can be significantly reduced by skilful engineer-
ing, without state intervention.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors conclude that future declines in hardware prices are unlikely to influence further reductions in solar electricity costs.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    From 2000 to 2015, the countries in our sample adopted an average of
0.24 reforms per year per country; from 2016 to 2023, the reform rate
rose to 0.38 per year, an increase of more than 50% (Table 2). There were
more reforms in 2015 and in 2016 than in any other year.

    Claimed Finding:
    The average annual rate of subsidy reforms per country increased by more than 50 % in 2016–2023 compared with 2000–2015.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Second, reforms were already fragile in the pre-2016 period, and
grew even more fragile after 2015. From 2000 to 2015, only 45% of all
subsidy reforms survived at least 12 months and only 22% survived for
36 months; from 2016 to 2023, 30% survived for 12 months and only 9%
lasted 36 months. Ambitious reforms were especially fragile.

    Claimed Finding:
    Subsidy reforms became more durable after 2015, with a larger proportion lasting at least three years.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Finally, subsidies per litre of gasoline rose substantially in 12 coun-
tries in our sample and changed little in the other 9. On average, the
value of the per-litre subsidy in our sample rose 65.1% over these 8 years,
equivalent to an annual increase of 6.5%.

    Claimed Finding:
    Between 2016 and 2023, average per-litre gasoline subsidies across the sample grew by about 65 %.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Over the full 2000–2023 period, 80% of all reforms were price reforms
and 20% were fixity reforms. This ratio changed over time. From 2000 to
2015, we found an average of just 0.024 new fixity reforms per country
year. From 2016 to 2023, however, they occurred at a rate of 0.13 new
reforms per country year, a fivefold increase. Fixity reforms accounted
for most of the overall rise in the frequency of reforms after Paris.

    Claimed Finding:
    Price reforms accounted for most of the overall rise in reform frequency after Paris.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The advantages of fixity reforms are self-evident: floating prices are
not automatically eroded by inflation, currency depreciation or global
oil shocks. In theory, fixity reforms should be more durable than price
reforms. In practice, governments found it politically difficult to allow
prices to float, especially when world oil prices rose too far. As a result, fix-
ity reforms were no more durable than price reforms. While fixity reforms
were more likely than price reforms to survive in their first year, they were
less likely to survive after 12 months. The mean duration of price reforms
was 1.8 years, while the mean duration of fixity reforms was 1.5 years.

    Claimed Finding:
    On average, price reforms lasted longer than fixity reforms across the study period.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Erosion was the most common source of failure during the 2000–2023
period, bringing about the end of 47% of reforms within the first year
and 61% within 3 years. Backtracking brought about the end of 14% of
all reforms in the first year and 19% within 3 years.

    Claimed Finding:
    Within the first year, erosion accounted for a greater share of reform failures than backtracking.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    After 2016, backtracking became more common. In the 2000–2015
period, just 9.6% of all reform failures were caused by backtracking;
after 2016, it rose to 38% of all failures (Fig. 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    Following 2016, less than ten percent of reform failures were due to backtracking.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    By December 2023, when our data end, three countries still had
floating prices in place: Myanmar, which is the poorest country in our
sample; United Arab Emirates, which is the second wealthiest; and
Nigeria, which falls near the middle. We discuss these cases below.

    Claimed Finding:
    As of December 2023, only Myanmar, Nigeria and the United Arab Emirates maintained floating gasoline prices among the countries studied.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    First, it documents the remarkable frequency with which fossil fuel
subsidy reforms have failed. The 21 countries in our sample enacted
132 reforms during the 2000–2023 period. All but nine of them (6.8%)
eventually failed. We disaggregated these failures by type and period
to better understand the obstacles to reform.

    Claimed Finding:
    Roughly one-quarter of the subsidy reforms implemented between 2000 and 2023 were still in place by the end of the study period.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Subsidy reforms tend to be short-lived, and reforms failed more
quickly after 2016. From 2000 to 2015, 45% of all reforms survived
for 12 months, and 22% survived for at least 36 months; from 2016 to
2023, only 30% survived for 12 months, and 9% survived for at least
36 months (Fig. 1).

    Claimed Finding:
    After 2016, about one-third of subsidy reforms survived at least three years.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    From our survey sample of 332, we found that the emerging global community of intervention practitioners was dominated by intervention scientists (58%), followed by intervention policymakers (14%) and non-governmental organization (NGO) practitioners (14%). Representatives of Traditional Owners and First Nations and of local community or industry sectors accounted for 1% and 3%, respectively, of our sample. Respondents’ engagement in marine-climate interventions ranged from involvement in research development, deployment and monitoring (63%) to programme design, project management and site implementation (13%), policy development, regulation and oversight (10%), funding (4%) and other (9%).

    Claimed Finding:
    Intervention scientists made up the largest group of practitioners in the survey, accounting for roughly 58 % of respondents.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Not-for-profit organizations, government agencies and science organizations were identified as leaders of intervention best practice by survey respondents (38%, 31% and 30% respectively, n = 82).

    Claimed Finding:
    The survey indicates that for-profit companies are viewed by most respondents as the primary leaders of intervention best practice.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Interventions were occurring in multiple regions globally, noticeably clustered in locations that are warming faster than the global average (that is, marine hotspot locations; see ref. 53). Respondents reported in detail, interventions (n = 309) that are distributed across 37 different specific marine or coastal locations and in most oceans and major seas (Fig. 1a).

    Claimed Finding:
    Practitioners reported interventions in 37 distinct marine or coastal sites around the world.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Oceans and seas where reported intervention activity was greatest were Australia’s tropical waters (16%), Australia’s and New Zealand’s temperate waters (15%), the North Pacific (15%) and the wider Caribbean (10%). Almost all of the interventions reported as active in Australia’s tropical waters were occurring in the Great Barrier Reef region (92%). These interventions were predominantly to support coral reef restoration, for example, through re-seeding coral, breeding of heat-resistant coral symbionts and coral reef habitat restoration and creation (6%, 4% and 2% of all reported interventions). Multiple types of interventions active within the same ocean region were reported almost without exception, with 96% of the interventions occurring in the same ocean region as at least one other type of intervention (Fig. 1b).

    Claimed Finding:
    Activities in Australia's tropical waters comprised less than 5 % of all reported interventions.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In terms of development, the majority of interventions identified were at pilot or full implementation stage (46% and 38%, respectively, n = 207 interventions; Fig. 1c) while 16% were at concept stage. Development was most progressed for marine bioengineering and coastal and marine restoration interventions. Specific interventions reported as having the highest level of technical readiness and development included artificial manipulation of habitats and regrowing of targeted coastal species (53% and 65% at implementation stage, respectively; Fig. 1c).

    Claimed Finding:
    More than half of all identified interventions were still at the concept stage rather than at pilot or implementation.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The most stated climate goal was to increase the biophysical adaptation or resilience of local marine ecosystems to climate-driven changes (57% of interventions, n = 211; Fig. 2). This climate goal was being pursued across all five intervention types, most commonly through coastal and marine restoration (for example, kelp forest and seagrass bed restoration), followed by marine bioengineering (for example, assisted evolution of coral). Notably, biophysical adaptation and resilience was also being pursued through marine socio-institutional capacity building (for example, development of climate-adaptive fisheries management regimes). However, the goal of social adaptation and resilience to climate change was reported for only 3% of interventions. For 5% of the interventions described, no climate goal was identified despite the survey design, which focused on interventions in the context of climate-driven change in oceans (Fig. 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    Over half of the interventions aimed to boost the biophysical resilience of local marine ecosystems, whereas only about 3 % targeted social adaptation.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Climate mitigation was also being pursued across all intervention types, with carbon removal (rather than emissions avoidance, for example) the second-most stated goal (27%; Fig. 2). Mitigation  interventions ranged from those designed to intervene in carbon cycles via marine geoengineering (for example, ocean alkalinity enhancement to increase air–ocean carbon exchange) to those working on biological mechanisms of carbon sequestration (that is, aquaculture for carbon sequestration). Some respondents also reported marine bioengineering (for example, heat-resistant kelp breeding programmes) and coastal and marine restoration (for example, seagrass meadow restoration) as aiming for carbon sequestration as a secondary goal.

    Claimed Finding:
    Emissions avoidance, rather than carbon removal, was identified as the second most common climate objective, cited by 27 % of interventions.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Gaps in the use of available governance arrangements were notable (Fig. 3) and included the low use of data co-produced with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (11% of interventions identified, n = 233), ethics assessment (14%), accountability and transparency mechanisms (15%), social impact mitigation measures (15%) and mechanisms to recognize and address unintended social impact (21%), and strategic leadership capacity (19% of interventions) (Supplementary Table 4).

    Claimed Finding:
    Accountability and transparency mechanisms were employed in fewer than one quarter of the interventions assessed.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Preparedness to responsibly govern specific intervention risks (Table 1 and Supplementary Tables 5 and 10) was varied. The risk of ineffectiveness was the risk most frequently addressed by applying available government arrangements. Levels of use across the available arrangements ranged between 57 and 70% of all interventions, from use of multiple data types (70% of interventions) and data sources for feasibility assessment (65%) to multiple forms of assessing implementation risk (59%; Supplementary Table 4).

    Claimed Finding:
    At least 70 % of interventions employed multiple methods to assess implementation risk.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    By contrast, levels of use of available arrangements to govern the risk of unintended harms ranged between 32 and 50% of interventions. Levels of use of available arrangements to govern risks of public distrust in interventions were even lower (between 28 and 50%), and for risks of negligence in addressing intervention effects, the range was lower again (between 28 and 35%). Concerningly, arrangements to govern the risk of opportunity cost in pursuing a given intervention were present in only 19% of interventions, implying that most interventions are not being assessed against one another (Supplementary Table 4).

    Claimed Finding:
    Measures to address opportunity-cost risks were present in roughly one-fifth of interventions.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Specifically, the results from our simulation indicate that achieving carbon neutrality in China would be an even greater challenge under ASIA than what is perceived under ISSA (Fig. 1). While carbon neutrality could be achieved in 23.5% of the scenarios under ISSA, it could be achieved in only 3.7% of the scenarios under ASIA. This suggests that because of policy interactions, the percentage of scenarios in which the carbon neutrality target could be achieved by 2060 decreases substantially by 84%. Furthermore, the timeline of achieving carbon neutrality under ASIA is expected to be delayed by ~5–6 years compared with that under ISSA. For scenarios in which the carbon neutrality target is successfully achieved, the average year achieving carbon neutrality is 2054 under ISSA but 2059 under ASIA.

    Claimed Finding:
    Accounting for interactions among mitigation policies cuts the share of scenarios that reach China’s carbon-neutrality goal by roughly 84 % and postpones success by about five to six years.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Under ISSA, residual CO2 emissions in 2060 for all mitigation policy scenarios range from −0.8 to 2.8 GtCO2, with the proportion of mitigation policy scenarios achieving carbon neutrality ranging from 88% (A5R5CxEx and C5R5AxEx) to 100% (A5E5CxRx and C5E5AxRx). However, under ASIA, residual CO2 emissions rise to 1.4–3.8 GtCO2, with the proportion of scenarios in which carbon neutrality is achieved being reduced to a range of 28% (C5A5RxEx) to 72% (R5E5CxAx).

    Claimed Finding:
    In the ASIA simulations, 2060 residual emissions are always below 2 Gt CO₂, indicating that every successful portfolio comfortably meets the neutrality threshold.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The ISSA results suggest that the most effective policy combinations for achieving the carbon neutrality target are dominated by the highest levels of A and E, or C and E, with an average attainment of carbon neutrality of 2053–2054 (Fig. 2a). However, the most effective policy combination under ASIA is that of R and E, with an average timeline of reaching carbon neutrality by 2059. The electrification of end uses is a key factor for attaining carbon neutrality, as the most potent portfolios must contain E policies under both AISA and ISSA. Furthermore, in terms of the timeline for achieving carbon neutrality, all scenarios under ASIA are projected to achieve the target later than those under ISSA.

    Claimed Finding:
    The analysis shows that every top-performing policy mix, under both ASIA and ISSA, includes an electrification component, underscoring end-use electrification as indispensable for carbon-neutrality success.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The results reveal that, under ISSA, the average cumulative economic cost from 2020 to 2060 is ~3.8% of GDP, which is much greater than the results (~2.9%) of the scenarios under ASIA, with the best economic performance observed in the combination of the highest level of A and R. Nevertheless, under ASIA, the best policy combination from the economic side changes to the highest level of R and E. R policy clearly plays a crucial role in determining the economic cost.

    Claimed Finding:
    On average, ISSA scenarios impose smaller cumulative GDP losses than ASIA scenarios over 2020–2060.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Our findings highlight the notable synergetic effect of the policy combination of renewable energy and electrification of end uses (R and E), which results in a 5–20% increase in carbon reduction and a −5% to −25% decrease in cumulative GDP cost by 2060 under ASIA compared with ISSA (Fig. 3). The E policy supports the substitution of electricity for fossil fuels by encouraging end-use sectors to adjust energy consumption preferences and increase electricity demand; in contrast, the R policy increases the proportion of green electricity by reducing the cost of renewable electricity generation in the overall electricity mix. On the economic cost side, the R policy promotes low-cost renewable electricity and mitigates the economic cost. Even though the E policy increases the cost of electricity production due to its expanded scale, the R policy helps mitigate the economic impact. Thus, when R and E policies are combined, the policy space of each is expanded to deliver results that are stronger than those from individual implementation, highlighting their potential mutual complementarity.

    Claimed Finding:
    Pairing renewable-energy expansion with end-use electrification both boosts emissions cuts by up to 20 % and lowers total GDP costs by as much as 25 % relative to treating the policies in isolation.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    By contrast, the carbon pricing and renewable energy (C and R) policy combination is the only one that has trade-off effects from both mitigation and economic perspectives. The carbon reduction attains a further 4–14% drop, whereas the cumulative GDP cost increases by an extra 2–12% under ASIA compared with that under ISSA by 2060.

    Claimed Finding:
    Implementing carbon pricing together with renewable-energy support produces clear economic synergies, lowering cumulative GDP losses relative to single-policy expectations.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The other policy combinations have a trade-off effect in terms of carbon mitigation but a synergetic effect on the economic cost. Compared with ISSA, C and A, A and R, C and E and A and E under ASIA decrease additional carbon reduction by an average of −12%, −9%, −4% and −5%, respectively, by 2060. The corresponding additional GDP losses are reduced by an average of −4%, −3%, −7% and −8%, respectively. The most substantial improvement in mitigation efficiency is observed in the R and E combination, followed by A and E and C and E. The largest decrease in efficiency is seen in the C and R combination, followed by C and A and A and R. The same trends are evident when more mitigation policies are combined (Supplementary Section 5); specifically, the simultaneous implementation of policies with R and E at high levels has notable positive impacts on all dimensions.

    Claimed Finding:
    Under ASIA, combining carbon pricing with electrification trims incremental GDP losses by roughly seven percent compared with ISSA, even though the pair yields smaller extra emissions cuts.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Beyond mitigation efficiency, mitigation policies also affect household income, consumption and utility levels through changes in electricity prices (Supplementary Section 5). A comparison of the results of ISSA and ASIA reveals that the R and E scenario still has the most notable positive effect on increasing the cumulative household consumption scale and utility levels by 2060, which is the opposite for the C and R scenario.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study indicates that the renewable-energy plus electrification package delivers the weakest gains to household consumption and utility, with carbon pricing plus renewables performing best.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Finally, enhancing the carbon sequestration capacity is crucial for achieving carbon neutrality goals, as the percentage of scenarios in which the carbon neutrality target is achieved by 2060 will decrease substantially from 11.1% to 0.23%, with a decrease in the carbon sequestration capacity from 2.5 GtCO2 to 1.5 GtCO2 (Supplementary Fig. 22). In this study, we assumed that the capacity is limited to a maximum of 2 GtCO2 from CCS technology and forest systems by 2060.

    Claimed Finding:
    Reducing assumed sequestration potential from 2.5 to 1.5 Gt CO₂ slashes the share of scenarios that meet the neutrality goal from about 11 % to under 1 %.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Our results indicate that the interactions between mitigation policies make attaining China’s carbon neutrality more challenging than expected, if this expectation refers to a simple aggregation of the direct effects of each mitigation policy implemented separately12,20. The percentage of scenarios achieving carbon neutrality by 2060 decreases substantially by 84%, and the attainment of carbon neutrality under these scenarios is postponed by 5–6 years when the interactions between mitigation policies are considered. While synergetic effects expand the potential space of policies with complementary mechanisms, trade-off effects compress the space of policies with competing mechanisms. Among the analysed policies, only combinations of renewable energy and electrification of end uses are complementary and show no competing mechanisms compressing the space of policies. In contrast, combinations of carbon pricing and renewable energy have the greatest trade-off effect. Thus, the findings highlight the need for careful policy combination to minimize carbon emissions and economic losses.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors conclude that carbon-pricing measures blend seamlessly with renewable-energy support, producing purely complementary effects with no notable trade-offs.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In China, carbon footprint is inversely correlated with age. Young Chinese people (<30 years) have relatively higher household car-
bon footprints than those of middle-aged (30–59 years) and older
(≥60 years) groups. The observed results are quite different from
those of developed countries, where older people are estimated to
have higher carbon footprints5,22. The difference in carbon footprint
distribution by age, between developed and developing countries, is
due mainly to the difference in wealth and income across age groups.
In wealthier developed countries, older people tend to be wealthier
than younger people and thus can afford a higher level of consump-
tion and tend to have higher carbon footprints23. In developing
countries (for example, China), young people have higher incomes
than older people (by 57%, according to our individual data), associ-
ated with higher consumption and carbon footprints (by 69% and
77%, respectively).

    Claimed Finding:
    The study shows that Chinese people under 30 emit more household CO2 than middle-aged or older cohorts.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    After examining the expenditure categories in greater detail, it
is evident that the top two contributors to the average carbon foot-
print of all age groups are consumption related to residence and that
related to transport (Fig. 1b and Supplementary Note 1). There are
some meaningful differences across age groups not only absolutely
but also proportionally (Supplementary Fig. 1), representing their
differences in lifestyle choices and life stage24. For residence, the
young people have the highest carbon footprint (1.08 tCO2 per capita
in 2017) and contribute to the largest share of total residence-related
footprint (46%), the majority of which is from renting or purchasing
a house18 and using electronic devices25; the older people have the
highest proportional share of residence-related carbon footprint (41%)
as they might be accustomed to using traditional energy-intensive
devices for heating and cooking (such as Kang and stove)26 and spend
much of their time at home (and thus have large household energy
consumption)27. For transport, the young people’s transport-related
footprint is the highest both absolutely (accounting for 50% of the
total transport-related footprint by all groups) and proportionally
(accounting for 25% of their own total footprint), largely from com-
muting to work28 and from a few big trips each year (for example, from
their workplace to their hometown)29. Moreover, the absolute and pro-
portional per capita carbon footprints related to clothing, goods and
transport have decreased gradually with age; however, health-related
carbon footprint has increased with age, as has education-related
carbon footprint until the individual is in their 30 s to 40 s, after which
it decreases (Fig. 1b). We further explore how unevenly the per capita
carbon footprint is distributed among different age groups using the
Theil index. The higher the index value is, the greater the inequality
in terms of the distribution between age groups. In 2017, the Theil
index for clothing, transport and education-related carbon footprint
was the highest, at 0.06, three times the average value of expenditure
categories (0.02) (Supplementary Table 3).

    Claimed Finding:
    The analysis finds that transport contributes only a negligible share to young people’s carbon footprint.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Between 2012 and 2017, China’s average per capita carbon foot-
print increased by 17%, from 2.00 tCO2 in 2012 to 2.34 tCO2 in 2017. In
particular, young people experienced larger increases (30%) than did
middle-aged (12%) and older (8%) people during this period, meaning
that the difference in carbon footprints across age groups grew (with
an increase in the Theil index from 0.01 to 0.02; Supplementary Tables 3
and 4). At the provincial level, the average per capita carbon footprint
and Theil index increased in most provinces, mainly because of the
growing carbon footprint of the young generation that ranges from a
10% increase (Yunnan) to a 211% increase (Ningxia) from 2012 to 2017
(Supplementary Tables 5 and 6).

    Claimed Finding:
    From 2012 to 2017, the rise in per-capita carbon footprint was greatest for the young group compared with middle-aged and older groups.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find that the preceding two kinds of policies will both pose
a challenge to carbon emissions mitigation. As for fertility policies,
they affect the population mainly in terms of size and structure,
and thus affect the carbon footprints. In specific, our results show
that the Chinese population will peak in 2023 (1.41 billion), 2030
(1.41 billion) and 2040 (1.44 billion) under the two-child, three-child
and replacement-level policies, respectively (Fig. 2a). From 2017
to 2060, the total population will decrease from 1.40 billion to 1.15
billion (two-child policy), 1.30 billion (three-child policy) and 1.39
(replacement-level policy), which means the population differences
are 12–20% under different policies (Fig. 2a). The mean population age
of a person will increase from 38 years to 51 years (two-child policy),
47 years (three-child policy) and 45 years (replacement-level policy),
thus, the proportion of older people will increase from 17% to 42%
(two-child policy), 37% (three-child policy) and 35% (replacement-
level policy) (Fig. 2b–e). Due to relaxing fertility policies, there is an
8–12% increase in per capita footprints (the blue, yellow and red solid
curves in Fig. 3 (China)), and the total footprints in China are likely to
be 21–35% higher.

    Claimed Finding:
    Relaxing fertility policies is projected to lower both per-capita and total household carbon footprints by 2060.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The preceding effects also hold at the provincial level, but the
extent of the impact varies (Supplementary Note 2). The provinces
with a higher Theil index are more sensitive to changes in fertility
policies (in terms of larger changes in per capita carbon footprints;
Supplementary Fig. 2). For example, in Inner Mongolia, which has
the highest Theil index in 2060, changing fertility policies are pro-
jected to increase its average per capita carbon footprint by 18–28%
(Fig. 3, Inner Mongolia). By comparison, in Guizhou, which has the
lowest Theil index in 2060, changing fertility policies are projected
to increase its average per capita carbon footprint by only 4–5%
(Fig. 3, Guizhou).

    Claimed Finding:
    Inner Mongolia, with the highest Theil index, is projected to experience a considerably larger per-capita footprint increase (18-28%) from fertility policy changes than Guizhou, which has the lowest index.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Fertility policies in combination with retirement delay tend to
further increase the carbon footprint in China. Notably, most of the car-
bon footprint increase comes from relaxing fertility policies (increas-
ing total (per capita) carbon footprint by 21–35% (8–12%) for 2060),
while delaying retirement policy has far smaller impacts (by only 2–3%
(2–3%)). The fertility policies in combination with retirement delay are
projected to have greater impacts on those provinces with a higher
Theil index, which is similar to the impacts of fertility policy alone (Sup-
plementary Fig. 3). Moreover, when focusing only on the impact of the
retirement delay policy, we found that the impact tends to be greater
in provinces with large discrepancies in per capita carbon footprints
between middle-aged and older people (Supplementary Fig. 4). For
example, in Inner Mongolia, which has the highest discrepancies in per
capita carbon footprints between middle-aged and older people, the
retirement delay policy is projected to increase its average per capita
carbon footprint by approximately 5% (Fig. 3, Inner Mongolia). By
comparison, in Yunnan, which has the lowest discrepancies in per capita
carbon footprints between these two age groups, the retirement delay
policy is projected to increase its average per capita carbon footprint
by less than 0.10% (Fig. 3, Yunnan).

    Claimed Finding:
    Delaying retirement age alone is expected to raise national per-capita household carbon footprints by more than 10%.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Our results show that Chinese young people have relatively higher per
capita household carbon footprints compared with older people. The
big driver behind this headline result might be differences in income,
which leads to differences in household consumption and then car-
bon footprints (Supplementary Note 3); The results differ from those
of existing research on developed countries, which have concluded
that older people tend to have higher per capita carbon footprints
compared with their younger counterparts. Such a distinctive pattern
is due mainly to the difference in income and consumption of China’s
older people from other developed countries23.

    Claimed Finding:
    Differences in income are identified as a major driver of the higher per-capita footprints observed among young Chinese compared with older adults.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    As for policies, our result shows that relaxing fertility policies
and delaying retirement age will boost the population (and labour
supply) and then lead to increases in total and per capita household
carbon footprints, most of which come from the fertility side. We do
not interpret the result to imply that such policies should be avoided to
reduce environmental pressure33. Rather, our result provides evidence
of interactions between the policies targeting population aging and
climate change, highlighting the importance of synergizing these two
types of policies.

    Claimed Finding:
    Based on the findings, the authors conclude that China should avoid further fertility relaxation to protect the environment.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In addition, we find that the provinces with large discrepancies
in carbon footprints across age groups are more sensitive to changes
in fertility and retirement policies. This result therefore highlights
the potential of emissions mitigation through reducing the discrep-
ancy in carbon footprints across age groups. Although consumption
patterns and lifestyles are different across age groups due to their
various requirements over the life course, the discrepancy in carbon
footprints between age groups can be narrowed by reducing income
and consumption inequality and encouraging greener consumption.

    Claimed Finding:
    The results indicate that provinces with larger age-group footprint disparities are more sensitive to fertility and retirement policy changes.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The total and per capita household carbon footprint varies greatly
across China’s provinces. Eastern provinces (which have large popu-
lations) tend to have higher total carbon footprints (particularly in
Shandong, Guangdong and Jiangsu; Fig. 1a and Supplementary Table 1).
Northwestern provinces (with high carbon intensity) and eastern
provinces (with high household consumption) tend to have higher
per capita carbon footprints. For example, Ningxia (a northwestern
province) had the highest per capita carbon footprint (6.68 tons CO2
(tCO2) in 2017, six times that of Sichuan (a southwestern province)
at 1.05 tCO2 (Fig. 1c). Taking China as a whole, its per capita carbon
footprint is much lower than that of developed countries. Specifically,
the Chinese per capita carbon footprint was 2.34 tCO2 in 2017, approxi-
mately one-sixth of that in the United States (13.37 tCO2) and one-third
of that in Japan (6.29 tCO2) and the United Kingdom (6.03 tCO2), but
similar to that in Mexico (2.31 tCO2) and almost three times that in
India (0.78 tCO2) (Fig. 1b).

    Claimed Finding:
    Sichuan recorded the highest per-capita household carbon footprint among Chinese provinces in 2017.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We find that the CBRS has been effective at curbing development within
designated areas (Table 2). CBRS designations see 0.12 percentage
points (p.p.) less built-up surface area (the percent of land covered
by building footprints), a 41% reduction relative to control areas
(Fig. 3a). Using an alternative measure of development, we estimate
that CBRS units have 0.044, or 83%, fewer buildings per acre than con-
 trol areas. The magnitude of these effects highlights the central role of
federal incentives in shaping development patterns along vulnerable
coastlines. Our results pass the standard synthetic control placebo
test (Extended Data Fig. 5) and are robust to the use of an alternative
research design (Suppmentary Section C).

    Claimed Finding:
    CBRS designations reduced built-up surface area in treated zones by roughly 40% compared with matched controls.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Local officials may be concerned that by curbing development
levels, CBRS designations may adversely affect local property revenues.
Using property-level data from Zillow, we do not find evidence of such
an effect. We find that CBRS designations increase mean sales prices
and total assessed value per acre within designated areas, although
the estimates are not statistically significant. Still, the positive effect
on prices is consistent with prior evidence that, despite increasing
costs for landowners, coastal land-use regulations can increase local
property values by restricting supply and generating nature-based
amenities30. A higher assessed value per acre indicates that the lower
development densities are offset by higher average values per property.
We find no evidence of systematic differences in the characteristics of
properties in CBRS and control areas.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study shows that CBRS designations have a statistically significant positive effect on average sales prices inside the designated zones.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Finally, we examine the impact on local demographics. Because
CBRS designations transfer the costs of development and disasters
to state and local governments and property owners, the policy may
attract homeowners who are more able to bear these costs. Using
data from the American Community Survey, we find that CBRS des-
ignations increase median household income by US$15,000, or 19%,
relative to control areas, and increase the rent-to-income ratio by 2
p.p., or 6%. Thus, CBRS areas tend to attract more affluent residents
and have become less affordable for renters. Indeed, the CBRA raises
the barrier to entry in designated areas by, for example, necessitat-
ing self-insurance against floods31,32. Other land-use regulations,
such as the California coastal boundary zone, have led to similar
demographic shifts29.

    Claimed Finding:
    CBRS areas drew in wealthier residents, with median household income rising by about $15 000 (19%) compared with similar untreated locations.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The occupancy rates within CBRS areas are 14 p.p. lower than
those in control areas, suggesting a greater prevalence of second
homes or vacation rentals, consistent with policy resulting in greater
natural amenities. Finally, CBRS designations changed the racial
makeup of residents. While CBRS areas already contained more white
people than average coastal areas before designation, we estimate
that the policy increased the share of white people by 3% (2.9 p.p.)
and reduced the share of Black people by 29% (−1.8 p.p.) relative to
the control group.

    Claimed Finding:
    Following CBRS designation, occupancy rates in treated areas rose by 14 percentage points relative to controls.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We estimate the impact of CBRS designation on nearby areas as a
function of distance to the unit boundary (Fig. 4). We find that removing
federal subsidies causes denser development, higher property sales
prices and higher assessed values per acre in neighbouring areas. The
effect on development densities is increasing in distance from the unit.
Within 1,000 m of CBRS units, we estimate an additional 0.03, or 4%
more, buildings per acre. Between 1,000 m and 2,000 m, the effect size
increases to 0.15 (+20%) and 0.19 (+47%) buildings per acre. The larger
spillover effects at greater distances can be explained by the CBRS
withdrawing infrastructure investment inside treated units: as trans-
portation and utilities are associated with network effects, we would
expect smaller increases in development closer to CBRS boundaries
due to limited supply of essential infrastructure.

    Claimed Finding:
    Development densities in areas within 2 km of CBRS lands rose, with building counts up roughly 4% inside 1 km and nearly 50% between 1–2 km away.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    In contrast, average sales prices and assessed values per acre are
highest closer to the CBRS units and decline with distance. Properties in
the 0–500 m band, for example, sell at a US$377,000 premium, or 77%
more than in control areas. Notably, the lower development densities
in built structures within CBRS units are more than offset by increased
development in neighbouring areas, indicating that the price increases
are not caused by a supply contraction. Higher property values near CBRS lands are consistent with a large hedonic
literature that shows that coastal amenities such as beach access and
hazard protection affect real estate markets13–18.

    Claimed Finding:
    Assessed land values per acre become progressively higher the farther a property is from a CBRS unit boundary.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    We next examine the impacts of the CBRS on flood damages in
spillover areas. We find economically large and statistically significant
negative impacts on overall damages from flooding, as measured by
flood insurance claims per acre (Fig. 4d). Annual insurance claims are
US$420 to US$760 less per acre (40–64% lower than in control areas).
Notably, treatment and control spillover areas have nearly identical
shares of land in floodplains (Table 1) and distributions of properties’
distances to the shoreline (Extended Data Fig. 6), suggesting that the
differences in flood damages is not caused by geographic differences.

    Claimed Finding:
    In neighbouring areas, annual flood insurance claims per acre fell by roughly 40–64% relative to controls after CBRS designation.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    The per-acre measure of flood damages is influenced by devel-
opment densities in flood zones and flood damages per property.
Consistent with the increased development in spillover areas, there
are more buildings per acre in high-risk flood zones of CBRS spillover
areas as compared with control spillover areas (Fig. 4f). However,
flood claims are US$19–27 lower per US$1,000 of coverage in treat-
ment areas (Fig. 4e), representing a 14–25% reduction in flood dam-
ages accounting for flood insurance uptake. In other words, the CBRS
provides flood protection at the property level. These flood protec-
tion services are probably generated by more natural lands inside the
units acting as barriers that dissipate and absorb flood waters. Indeed,
previous work establishes a link between wetlands and reductions in
flood damages9–12.

    Claimed Finding:
    After adjusting for coverage amounts, CBRS spillover areas exhibit about a 20% increase in flood claims per $1,000 of insurance coverage.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Fiscal impacts on counties
We calculate the effect of CBRS designations on property tax revenues
by combining our total assessed value estimates in both CBRS units and
their spillover areas with current average county property tax rates.
We find no evidence of a change in property tax revenues within CBRS
designations. However, we find a US$911 million per year increase in
revenues in spillover areas. This figure represents 2.5% of total local
property tax revenues in Atlantic and Gulf coast states.

    Claimed Finding:
    Spillover development associated with CBRS adds roughly $0.9 billion in annual property tax revenue to coastal counties without reducing tax receipts inside the designated lands themselves.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the original system
of CBRS units generates US$389 million per year in savings for the NFIP.
This figure represents approximately 19% of average annual NFIP claims
in Atlantic and Gulf coast counties over the period 2009–2021. The origi-
nal units make up only 0.46% of land areas in these counties. If we assume
the CBRS units added later along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts generate
similar benefits, the total saving in the current system (excluding the
Great Lakes) would be US$930 million per year in annual NFIP claims
generated from removing federal development subsidies on only 1% of
lands in these counties. This finding complements two existing studies
of the savings CBRA generates in federal post-disaster assistance35,36.

    Claimed Finding:
    Researchers conclude that CBRS designations save only about 1% of average annual NFIP claims along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Adequacy The adequacy of NDCs and NAPs for informing adaptation tracking varied greatly among countries (Fig. 2a–c and Extended Data Table 1). Generally, NDCs had lower adequacy scores (minimum–maximum range of 0–1) than NAPs (P < 0.001), except for the Democratic Republic of the Congo (NDC = 0.8, NAP = 0.7) and Sierra Leone (0.9, 0.4), probably because these two NAPs were in the initial stages of development at the time of the analysis (Extended Data Tables 2 and 3). NDC adequacy scores ranged between 0.2 and 0.9 (median = 0.39, s.d. = 0.19). Only 11% (6) of NDCs had scores in the upper quartile (>0.75), including NDCs from Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Burundi (2021) and Uganda (2022). Lower quartile scores (<0.25) were first submissions (between 2016–2018) (n = 4), updated first submissions (2016–2021) (n = 4) and second submissions (2021–2022) (n = 2). Low-income countries (Methods), representing 38% of the countries in the dataset, had higher scores for their NDCs compared with countries in middle- and high-income groups together (P < 0.05, N = 53) (Extended Data Tables 1 and 3). Neither adaptation funding nor governance influenced NDC adequacy (P > 0.05).

    Claimed Finding:
    Low-income African countries generally recorded lower NDC adequacy scores than their middle- and high-income counterparts.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: CONTRADICT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Fifteen (15) countries had both an NDC and a NAP at the time of our analysis. Sixty-seven percent of the NAPs (8) had adequacy scores of more than 0.75. High-scoring NAPs were submitted in or after 2021, except for Burkina Faso and Cameroon NAPs which were submitted in 2015 and Ethiopia’s NAP submitted in 2019. In some cases, despite a time lag between NAP and NDC releases (2016 and 2022, respectively, in Sudan, 2022 and 2021 in Chad, and 2022 in the Central African Republic), adequacy scores remained low (0.4) across all policy documents of these three countries. This potentially indicates limited complementarities or limited observable learning between preparations of the two documents. Adaptation funding levels did not affect NAP adequacy scores (P > 0.05), yet governance readiness—an indicator of institutional preparedness—had a significant positive effect (β = 1.5182, s.e. = 0.4921, P = 0.0104), explaining a significant proportion of the variance in the NAP adequacy score (F(1,11) = 9.52, adjusted R2 = 0.415, P = 0.010).

    Claimed Finding:
    Greater governance readiness was significantly associated with higher NAP adequacy scores.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT


Question:
You are given a passage from a scientific paper and a research finding derived from it.

    Your task is to determine whether the finding is **fully supported** by the information provided in the passage.

    Respond with one word:
    **SUPPORT** - if the finding is clearly and accurately justified by the passage
    **CONTRADICT** - if the finding misrepresents, exaggerates, or is not derivable from the passage

    Do not make assumptions beyond the provided text. Use only the given evidence.

    Scientific Text:
    Coverage All NDCs and NAPs included at least half of the six elements used to assess coverage (Fig. 2d). However, coverage was more complete in NAPs than in NDCs (P < 0.001, N = 15 and N = 53, respectively), with mean scores of 0.7 and 0.9, respectively (Extended Data Table 1). Only four (4) or less than 10% of the NDCs, but more than half (8) of the NAPs, included information on all six elements: Angola, Burundi, Sierra Leone and Uganda (NDC); and Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Liberia, Madagascar, South Africa and Togo (NAP). Elements most featured, in descending order, were climate hazards and systems at risk (all NDCs and NAPs), adaptation actions (95% and 100% of NDCs and NAPs, respectively), objectives (70%, 93%), goals (47%, 87%) and indicators (23%, 67%) (Fig. 3a,b). We provide detailed summaries of observations by element type, country and document in Extended Data Table 4.

    Claimed Finding:
    Fewer than one quarter of African NDCs included adaptation indicators among their reported elements.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT