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 data firmly support hypotheses 1–3 defined above (Fig. 1).
Weighting the differences by state sample sizes, the data suggest
that community solar adopters are about 6.1 times more likely to live
in multifamily buildings than rooftop solar adopters, 4.4 times more
likely to rent and earn about 23% less in annual income. At the same
time, the data suggest that community solar adopters are not demo-
graphically representative of the general population. In most states,
community solar adopters earn more than average and are less likely
to rent and live in multifamily buildings than the general population.
That is, community solar expands access relative to rooftop solar
but is still inequitable relative to the general population. Differences
in race are more ambiguous. The comparative statistics are mostly
statistically insignificant according to the one-sided test that com-
munity solar adopters are more likely to identify as people of colour or
Hispanic. Across all the states in the sample, rooftop solar adopters are
about twice as likely as community solar adopters to identify as Asian/
Asian American or Black and about three times as likely to identify as
Hispanic (Fig. 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    Community solar households have about 23 % lower annual incomes than rooftop solar 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:
    We do not find evidence that community solar has expanded
solar access in terms of race. Indeed, we find that people of colour and
Hispanic households have been less likely to adopt community solar
than rooftop solar. The reason for these racial differences is unclear.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study concludes that community solar adopters are more likely than rooftop solar adopters to be people of colour or Hispanic.

    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 use a conditional probability model to compare how the differ-
ent demographic factors explain household adoption decisions (Meth-
ods). The models describe the relative power of each demographic
factor in predicting whether a household is a community or rooftop
solar adopter, conditioned on correlation with the other factors (for
example, multifamily building occupants are more likely to rent than
single-family occupants; Supplementary Table 4). The model sug-
gests that the strongest predictors of adoption choices are race and
housing tenure (Fig. 3). Further, we use Akaike Information Criterion
(AIC) scores to assess the prediction accuracy of model variations
including different combinations of the demographic factors (Supple-
mentary Table 6). The AIC scores likewise suggest that race and housing
tenure are the most predictive variables. As with the comparative
statistics, the conditional impacts of race are directionally opposite
to our hypothesis. In the remaining discussion, we generally focus on
the demographic differences that confirmed a priori hypotheses and
return to a discussion of race in Conclusions.

    Claimed Finding:
    The logit analysis identified housing tenure and race as the two most influential demographic predictors of choosing community versus rooftop solar.

    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:
    Participants earn significantly less and are more likely to rent and
live in multifamily housing than non-participants (Fig. 5). Participants
are also significantly more likely to identify as people of colour or
Hispanic than non-participants. These results imply that community
solar policies have effectively expanded access in all four demo-
graphic dimensions. The results suggest that various approaches
can effectively expand access, as evidenced by the distinct LMI pro-
gramme structures of the three states in the analysis: Illinois subsi-
dizes LMI customer participation, whereas New York incentivizes LMI
customer enrolment at the project level and Oregon administers an
LMI carve out (Supplementary Table 8).

    Claimed Finding:
    Low-income programme participants in community solar are significantly more likely than non-participants to rent and to reside in multifamily buildings.

    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:
    To generate rough estimates of the contributions of inherent and
policy impacts, we calculate the effects of removing participants on
overall demographic differences. For instance, in Illinois, the median
income difference between all community and rooftop solar adop-
ters is US$13,000, whereas the median income difference between
non-participants and rooftop adopters is US$8,000, such that policy
accounts for about US$5,000 or 38% of the difference (assuming mini-
mal free riding). Under that approach, if free riding is trivial, the results
suggest that policy explains around 67% of income differences between
community and rooftop solar adopters, 43% of the differences in hous-
ing tenure and 23% of the differences in housing type on average across
the three states. The fact that policy appears to contribute more to
income differences is not surprising given that the policies evaluated
here target income levels. Thus, broadly speaking, the data suggest that
policy impacts are the primary driver of income differences, whereas
inherent impacts are the primary driver of differences in housing
type, and both impacts contribute roughly evenly to differences in
housing tenure.

    Claimed Finding:
    Assuming minimal free-riding, policy incentives explain about two-thirds of the income difference between community and rooftop solar adopters.

    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:
    Though community solar expands access relative to rooftop solar,
community solar adopters tend to earn more than the broader popu-
lation and are less likely to rent and live in multifamily housing. This
outcome is not surprising given the economic incentives that commu-
nity solar providers face (see Introduction). It is likely that community
solar will become more equitable over time, both because of the broad
tendency of emerging technologies to diffuse to underserved markets
over time8 and because of increasingly ambitious community solar
policies to expand access34.

    Claimed Finding:
    The paper shows that across income and housing variables, community solar customers closely resemble the statewide population.

    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 contrast, the emergence of rooftop solar leasing partly addressed
adoption cost barriers for LMI homeowners. These differences in adop-
tion barriers may partly explain the observed differences in the demo-
graphic factors. To further explore this hypoth-
esis, we separately identified rooftop solar system owners and lessees
in the five states where leasing is allowed, and the data allowed us to
identify lessees. In three of the five states, rooftop solar lessee incomes
more closely resemble the typical incomes of community solar adop-
ters than rooftop solar system owners (Fig. 4). However, in those same
three states, rooftop solar lessees are not substantially more likely to
rent or live in multifamily housing. The data suggest that rooftop solar
leasing addresses barriers to adoption for LMI homeowners but does
not effectively address housing barriers. The renter and multifamily
housing market is thus the clearest market niche for community solar
to address.

    Claimed Finding:
    According to the analysis, rooftop solar lessees are substantially more likely to be renters and multifamily residents than community solar subscribers.

    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:
    Non-participant community solar adopters earn significantly less
than rooftop solar adopters in Illinois and New York. However, non-participant community solar adopters
earn slightly more in Oregon, suggesting that income differences in
Oregon are fully explained by policy. Differences in housing type and
tenure remain significant for non-participants in Illinois and Oregon
(consistent with inherent impacts) but are rendered insignificant in
New York. However, a robustness check to account for exceptional
circumstances in New York (Methods) suggests that demographic
differences in that state are more similar to other states when account-
ing for geographic differences in rooftop and community solar siting
(Supplementary Table 10).

    Claimed Finding:
    Across Illinois, New York, and Oregon, the difference in housing tenure between non-participant community solar adopters and rooftop adopters is statistically insignificant.

    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:
    Fig. 4 | Comparisons of demographic characteristics across three solar
products. a, Median income levels (N = 47,256 community, 23,133 rooftop
owners, 18,174 rooftop lessees). b, Percentage of renters (N = 36,391 community,
19,058 rooftop owners, 15,558 rooftop lessees). c, Percentage of multifamily
building occupants (N = 47,242 community, 23,133 rooftop owners, 18,174
rooftop lessees). d, Percentage of people of colour or Hispanic (N = 47,256
community, 23,133 rooftop owners, 18,174 rooftop lessees). Solid diamonds
indicate statistically significant (P < 0.05) differences between community
solar adopters and rooftop solar lessees based on one-sided Wilcoxon tests
(income) or Pearson Chi-squared tests (all other variables). Numerical results in
Supplementary Table 7.

    Claimed Finding:
    Figure 4 indicates that the dataset contains 47,256 community solar customers versus 18,174 rooftop solar lessees.

    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:
    Fig. 1 | Comparisons of demographic characteristics of community and
rooftop solar adopters. a, Median income levels (N = 181,688). b, Percentage
of renters (N = 147,881). c, Percentage of multifamily building occupants
(N = 181,672). d, Percentage of people of colour or Hispanic (N = 181,688). Solid
diamonds indicate statistically significant (P < 0.05) results based on one-sided
Wilcoxon tests (income) or Pearson Chi-squared tests (all other variables).
Statewide estimates for race are omitted for reasons explained in Methods.
Numerical results in Supplementary Table 2. CO, Colorado; DC, Washington, DC;
IL, Illinois; MA, Massachusetts; MD, Maryland; ME, Maine; MN, Minnesota; NJ,
New Jersey; NY, New York; OR, Oregon; RI, Rhode Island.

    Claimed Finding:
    Figure 1 demonstrates that more than 80 % of community solar adopters live in multifamily buildings in every examined state.

    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:
    Across our full dataset of climate-tech startups (Model 1), corpo-
rate investment and other private investment are both highly signifi-
cant and positively correlated with exits and failures, whereas public
grants are not. Startups with at
least one corporate investment exited at a rate 110% higher than those
without corporate investment (hazard ratio = 2.10). Similarly, startups
with at least one investment from other private investors exited at a
rate 150% higher than those without such investments (hazard ratio =
2.50). Each additional patent held by a startup was associated with a 2%
increase in rate of exits, whereas being headquartered in a climate-tech
‘hotspot’ location was associated with a 23% increase in exit rate. For
the same population of startups, corporate investment was associated
with a 62% increase in rate of failure, and other private investment
was associated with a 265% increase in rate of failure. While startups
are high-risk investments where most will fail, and thus correlation
with failure is not necessarily surprising, the lower hazard of failure
for corporate investment compared with other private investment
sources may indicate a role for corporations in providing more patient
capital. Public grants, patents and startup location were not found to
be significantly associated with failure.

    Claimed Finding:
    Corporate investment is associated with roughly double the likelihood of exit compared with startups that do not receive corporate funding.

    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:
    However, climate-tech sectors are not homogeneous, and startups
that receive a public grant are more likely to be in high-risk sectors
(Fig. 2). Startups that received public grants remained privately held
at the highest rate after ten years (Table 1), which could reflect longer
timescales associated with high-risk technologies. Our results suggest
particularly favourable outcomes associated with corporate invest-
ment for this group compared with other private investment for both
exits (Model 2, 155% higher rate of exit with corporate investment
compared with 78% higher rate of exit with other private investment)
and failure (77% higher rate of failure with corporate investment com-
pared with 134% higher rate of failure with other private investment).

    Claimed Finding:
    Among grant-funded startups, those that also secure corporate investment exit at markedly higher rates than those that only attract other private investors.

    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:
    Startups that received corporate investment (Model 4) had the
highest rates of both IPO (5.1%) and merger/acquisition (16%) exits
across all models (Table 1), yet none of the modelled variables were
found to be significantly associated with these outcomes (Table 2).
This could be due to only 25 startups in the dataset receiving corporate
investment without also receiving other private investment (Fig. 1d),
limiting the strength of this finding (likelihood ratio test in Table 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    The subgroup of startups backed by corporations shows the greatest proportion of IPO and M&A exits in the study.

    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:
    Corporate investment is consistently associated
with higher rates of exits (Fig. 4b), and this association is robust across
founding years (Supplementary Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 12)
and other sectors (Supplementary Fig. 4). Public grants have mixed
results across sectors, with grants significantly related to lower rates of
exit and failure in the energy efficiency sector, but with no significant
trends in other large sectors. There are also sectoral differences in the
overall rate of exit and failure, such as particularly high rates of failure in
the solar sector, and relatively high rates of exits in the transportation
sector. These differences validate our choice to assign each sector their
own baseline hazard function to account for variation in sector-level
characteristics.

    Claimed Finding:
    Regardless of sector or founding period, corporate backing correlates with elevated exit rates.

    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 no investment source is a significant
predictor of exits or failures for high-patenting startups, but location
in a climate-tech hotspot is highly significant and correlates with an
increase in likelihood of exit (Supplementary Table 15). Corporate
investment shows a unique relationship for these high-patenting
startups with a negative but insignificant correlation with failure,
contrasted with other private investment, which still has a positive
and significant correlation with failure as in the overall dataset (Sup-
plementary Table 16).

    Claimed Finding:
    For startups with many patents, being in a climate-tech hotspot boosts exit chances, while neither corporate nor other funding significantly predicts outcomes.

    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:
    Failure for startups with corporate investment was only significantly
associated with other private investment (305% higher rate of failure
than startups without other private investment). Startups that did not
receive corporate investment (Model 5) saw the lowest rate of IPOs
(1.3%) across all models. Exit outcomes were significantly associated
with other private investment (411% higher rate of exit) and location
in a climate-tech hotspot (37% higher rate of exit). Failure for start-
ups without corporate investment was significantly associated with
other private investment (260% higher rate of failure), as seen in other
models. However, this model was the only one that found a significant
association between patents and failure (1% higher rate of failure with
each additional patent).

    Claimed Finding:
    Among firms lacking corporate backing, patenting activity showed no measurable link to failure rates.

    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 examine the sensitivity of our results with respect to time
and patenting activity. Climate-tech investment has matured from
Cleantech 1.0 to Cleantech 2.0, potentially leading to different invest-
ment effects across time periods (Supplementary Note 1)2,30. To assess
potential differences, we replicate the analysis in Table 2 for both time
periods. Whereas there is little difference in trends for exits, corpora-
tions are significantly associated with failure only in the Cleantech
1.0 period (Supplementary Tables 13 and 14). Further investigation is
needed to determine the causes of this change (Discussion); however,
it may indicate a lower hazard of startup failure from future corporate
investments. All other trends remain the same, indicating the analysis
presented here is robust to temporal differences.

    Claimed Finding:
    Corporate investment is significantly tied to startup failure in the Cleantech 2.0 era but not during Cleantech 1.0.

    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:
    Corporate investors are differentiated from public grants and
other private investors in a few key ways. First, they consistently
increased in number of investments and amount invested since 2005,
even as public grants and other investors saw uneven spates of growth
and decline, followed by continuous growth since 2016 (Fig. 1a,b).
Second, corporate investment deals peak later in the startup life
cycle and skew towards high-value growth equity and late-stage
rounds rather than cheaper seed rounds (42.0% of corporate invest-
ment deals are for growth equity, compared with 28.6% for other
private investment; Fig. 1c). Finally, corporations tend to invest in
partnership with other forms of investment (86.9% of startups funded
by corporations also received a public grant or other private invest-
ment), whereas both public and other private investors fund a greater
number of startups alone (44.5% of startups funded by other private
investment and 53.1% of startups that received public grants also
received funding from a different investor type; Fig. 1d).

    Claimed Finding:
    More than 80% of corporate investment deals occur in seed rounds rather than growth equity rounds.

    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:
    Public grants are
most dominant in sectors with very few startups, with the six sec-
tors with the highest percentage of public funding all including fewer
than 60 startups (compared with an average of 145). In each of these
sectors, public grants account for at least 24% of investments (com-
pared with 11% of investments overall). This dominance is potentially
due to less profitable markets or technologies that are more difficult to
commercialize (for example, nuclear) and suggests that public grants
fill a key role in the climate-tech ecosystem by funding sectors that are
less popular with traditional equity and corporate investors11,23.

    Claimed Finding:
    Smaller climate-tech sectors receive the fewest public grants, with grant shares seldom rising above 11% of investments.

    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 2020,
an estimated 34% of climate-tech startups received investment from
corporations (representing 24% of investment dollars), compared
with 57% from venture capital representing 31% of investment dollars9.
This indicates that corporations make fewer investments, but these
investments are larger and thus potentially more influential for shaping
innovation9.

    Claimed Finding:
    In 2020, corporate investors supplied the majority of all investment dollars going to climate-tech startups.

    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 3 shows our modelling results on the impact of reforms and actors’ foresight on carbon prices (see also Extended Data Figs. 1–6). First of all, one can see between period (1) and period (2), when the MSR reform was negotiated and implemented, actors presumably started to look further into the future. When turning to period (1) before 2018, one notices that observed ETS prices are closer to the modelled prices for myopic actors than to the modelled prices for farsighted actors. It seems therefore plausible to assume that market actors behaved at least partially myopically, which is in line with earlier assessments7. For periods (2) and (3), one observes the opposite: both, the 2019–2020 observed ETS prices of €20–30 tCO2−1 and the 2021–2022 ones of €70–90 tCO2−1, are consistent with the modelled prices for farsighted actors (that is, perfect foresight trajectories for old ‘MSR reform’ targets, and new ‘Fit for 55’ targets, respectively). We also calculate the Mean Average Percentage Error (MAPE) between the modelled and historical prices (Extended Data Tables 1–4), which confirms the visual conclusions drawn from Fig. 3.

    Claimed Finding:
    Observed carbon prices after 2018 match the trajectories generated by the farsighted-actor model better than those from the myopic-actor model.

    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 reality, it is estimated that external investors currently hold only around 5–10% of allowances futures9, consistent with the scenario in which 5% of auctioned allowances are bought by external financial investors. This scenario shows only a small price increase of less than €10 tCO2−1 in 2025 compared with the pure myopic scenario (Fig. 4). Thus, following our results, a major contribution of external investors to the price rise seems unlikely. What is on the other hand possible, is that they acted as a catalyser, speeding up the process of compliance actors switching to longer foresight and anticipating the consequences of the ‘Fit for 55’ package.

    Claimed Finding:
    The model indicates that if financial investors purchased 5 % of allowances, 2025 carbon prices would leap by more than €50 /tCO2 compared with the myopic baseline.

    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:
    To summarize, we provide a possible explanation of the past: we show that the two price rises (first to €20–30 tCO2−1 and more recently to €70–90 tCO2−1) are consistent with a first regulatory reform that had limited impact on the cumulative certificate budget but contributed to a switch of actors’ behaviour from myopic to farsighted and a second reform that substantially tightened the emissions cap. Whereas external investors may have accelerated the transition, it seems improbable that prices are artificially high solely due to their activity.

    Claimed Finding:
    According to the authors, external investors were the principal cause of the two major EU-ETS price surges since 2018.

    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:
    Furthermore, our results provide insights about the present state of the EU ETS. Our modelling indicates that observed 2022 and 2023 prices of around €80 tCO2−1 put the ETS sectors on track to achieving their reduction targets set by the Climate Law, a result in line with earlier findings35.

    Claimed Finding:
    Model results suggest that the current price level of roughly €80 /tCO2 is adequate to keep EU-ETS sectors on a trajectory consistent with the 2030 Climate Law targets.

    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:
    Figure 6 shows the price trajectory of such a ‘reversal to myopia’ scenario. It presumes actors were myopic in the past, became farsighted around 2020 and turn fully myopic again in 2025. Prices could then start falling, reaching a level below €30 tCO2−1 in 2025. There is currently no mechanism ensuring prices stay high in the next years.

    Claimed Finding:
    The simulations project that if actors revert to myopic behaviour in 2025, carbon prices could drop to below €30 /tCO2 that same year.

    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 illustrated in Fig. 7a, our modelling shows that myopia could massively slow down wind capacity expansion in the next ten years, with yearly investments reduced by a factor of three, compared with the cost-optimal (that is, perfect foresight) trajectory. The missing wind power in combination with low carbon prices would strongly delay the phase-out of coal (Fig. 7b).

    Claimed Finding:
    The study finds that adopting a myopic outlook has only a negligible effect on future wind power investments when compared with perfect foresight.

    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:
    Reproducing historical developments in time step 2015. The capacity spin up of LIMES-EU is fixed so that it matches the 2015 historical mix of installed generation capacities in EU ETS countries. Extended Data Fig. 5 illustrates that based on this standing capacity, the model-calculated dispatch then reasonable matches the historic power generation dispatch in EU ETS countries. The total modelled emissions from electricity generation in the year 2015 for EU ETS countries covered by LIMES-EU amount to 981 Mt CO2, closely aligning with the historical emissions of 967 Mt CO2 reported by Mantsos et al.56 Because emissions from industry, heating and aviation are also calibrated to match their historical 2015 levels (as described in LIMES-EU documentation52), this calibration ensures that our model generates meaningful values for total emissions in the 2015 time step. Also, the model-endogenous investments in 2015 lead to standing capacities in 2020 that match historic wind and solar capacities in 2020. To this aim, we additionally assume subsidies for electricity generated from solar or wind sources (€0.04 kWh−1 for solar and €0.015 kWh−1 for wind) to represent the various renewable subsidies that were in place in most EU member states. Our model, however, underestimates the capacity additions of offshore wind until 2020, which took place mostly in the United Kingdom.

    Claimed Finding:
    The model’s 2015 simulation reproduces historical power-sector emissions within roughly 2 %, indicating close agreement with observed data.

    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:
    Reproducing historical developments in time step 2020. To validate the 2020 model results, we first fix capacity spin up so that our model matches the installed generation capacities for both 2015 and 2020 in EU ETS countries. In Extended Data Fig. 6, we show that this calibration enables our model to approximate EU-wide dispatch and total emissions from the electricity sector in 2020. It’s important to note that our model operates in five-year steps, with time step 2020 representing the actual years 2018–2022. However, due to the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, the year 2020 deviates from the typical trends of 2018–2022. Hence, to validate time step 2020, we provide real values for the years 2019 and 2020.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors acknowledge that, even after calibration, their model fails to approximate EU-wide 2020 electricity dispatch and emissions.

    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:
    When analysing past carbon prices (Fig. 1), one can broadly break down the timeline into three periods with distinct price regimes: (1) the period of 2008–2017, in which prices first dropped and then stabilized at a low level below €10 tCO2−1, (2) the period of 2018–2020, the first rise up to a plateau of €20–30 tCO2−1 and (3) the period since late 2020, the second rise, in which prices increased strongly and are now stabilizing around €70–90 tCO2−1. What might have been the main mechanisms driving these three regimes, and, in particular, what role could actors’ foresight have played?

    Claimed Finding:
    The paper states that during 2008–2017 carbon prices generally remained above €20 /tCO2.

    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:
    Hence, regarding the first rise at the beginning of period (2), a hypothesis following our results is that prices increased due to a gradual switch from actors’ short- to long-term foresight, which might have been triggered, among other things, by the MSR reform tightening the cap and strengthening the MSR. Whereas our results indicate that the direct effect of the reform—the tighter emissions budget—cannot explain the substantial increase in prices under the assumption of continued myopia, the reform might have had a strong indirect impact:

    Claimed Finding:
    The modelling suggests that tightening the emissions cap alone could not account for the early price surge if market participants had remained myopic.

    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:
    Figure 1 illustrates that battery system costs, broken down by source categories, may decline by 64% to 75% until 2050. We observe rapid and consistent cost reductions per annum (p.a.), with similar patterns for all source categories. We find cost reductions (CRs) of around 5% p.a. (scientific and others) to 6.5% p.a. (near market) until 2030 and 3.3–4.5% p.a. over an extended 2020–2050 period. Notably, near-market estimates (blue) are more optimistic, less heterogeneous and more stable compared with the other categories. This consolidates into expected cost estimates, where near-market estimates project a decrease from around €2020275 kWh−1 in 2020 to €2020140 kWh−1 by 2030 and around €202070 kWh−1 by 2050. In contrast, scientific estimates (green) indicate a drop from roughly €2020310 kWh−1 in 2020 to €2020180 kWh−1 by 2030 and around €2020100 kWh−1 by 2050. Other estimates (purple) also project more conservative progress, cutting €2020200 kWh−1 by 2030 and approximating €2020115 kWh−1 by 2050. The cross-category projection (black) closely aligns with scientific projections.

    Claimed Finding:
    Near-market projections in the study suggest heavy-duty truck battery system costs will decline to about €140 per kWh by 2030.

    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:
    Figure 2 illustrates that FC system costs, broken down by source categories, may decline by 65% to 85% until 2050. Notably, our observations unveil significant heterogeneity among these categories. Near-market estimates (blue) initiate at approximately €2020540 kW−1 in 2020, undercut the €2020100 kW−1 threshold by 2045 and attain around €202085 kW−1 by 2050. This equals CRs of around 9% p.a. until 2030 and around 6% p.a. over 2020–2050. Conversely, scientific estimates (green) initiate at approximately €2020 kW−1 in 2020 and fall below €2020100 kW−1 in the late 2030s, ultimately reaching around €202080 kW−1 by 2050 and CRs of around 3.5% p.a. over 2020–2050. Other estimates (purple) are centred between near-market and scientific estimates without reaching sub-€2020100 kW−1 levels.

    Claimed Finding:
    According to near-market estimates reported, fuel-cell system costs for trucks are expected to drop below €100 per kW already by 2030.

    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:
    Table 1 shows the derived heavy ZET component costs (mean ± two standard errors). Unlike for battery and FC costs, we find less substantial CR potentials for the adjacent ZET components using the same method, albeit with smaller samples and less detail (Supplementary Figs. 14–17). Precisely, costs for electric motors probably fall from beyond €202042 kW−1 by 2020 to €202030 kW−1 by 2050 (−1.2% p.a.). For hydrogen tanks, we find CRs of around 2.6–2.9% p.a. over 2020–2050. This translates into decreasing system costs from around €202017 kWh−1 (liquid-LH2) and €202024 kWh−1 (compressed-CH2) by 2020 to around €20207 kWh−1 (LH2) and €202011 kWh−1 (CH2) by 2050. Last, we derive stable system costs of around €202050 kW−1 for PE&HV components.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors project electric motor costs to fall by roughly 4% per year through 2050.

    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 analysis of battery cost predictions unveils that near-market estimates are remarkably stable over different release dates. These projections are prone to only minor downward adjustments, as indicated by the difference between OLS and WLS results (Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6 and Supplementary Table 2), and are consistently more optimistic than those from scientific literature (p < 0.05, two-tailed t-test; Supplementary Table 4). Conversely, scientific cost estimates published in 2010–2023 faced substantial downward adjustments. Hence, battery costs have experienced a more rapid decline than initially expected, at least in the scientific community. This echoes Nykvist and Nilsson25, who found similar divergences for industry vs market leaders vs peer-reviewed literature estimates and supports conclusions from Frith et al.32, who emphasize substantial gaps between academic and industry perspectives. One explanation might be that near-market sources may have more practical in-depth knowledge about technologies, manufacturing or cost-saving measures and better access to industry insights such as market trends, partnerships, supply chain dynamics or confidential pricing data. In contrast, parts of the scientific literature may be classified as theoretical estimates or may be affected by citation patterns or time-delaying review processes, leading to the self-confirmation of outdated values and assumptions.

However, FC system costs exhibit an inverse trend. Scientific estimates show higher stability and are consistently more optimistic (p < 0.05, two-tailed t-test; Supplementary Table 5) than near-market estimates.

    Claimed Finding:
    For battery costs, scientific publications are generally less optimistic than near-market sources, whereas for fuel cells the opposite pattern is observed.

    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:
    Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) benefits against diesel trucks (DTs) typically constitute the key ZET criterion for fleet operators9–13, with other factors being also relevant. Using a recent TCO framework56 along with our cost projections, we find that BETs may realize cost benefits versus DTs as of today. In contrast, FCETs may struggle to reach TCO parity throughout the 2030s because green hydrogen prices remain probably too high. Herein the share of acquisition costs substantially rises for ZETs compared with current DTs, whereas energy storage size, energy prices and mileage are the most sensitive parameters (Methods and Supplementary Figs. 18 and 19).

    Claimed Finding:
    The analysis concludes that battery-electric trucks can already achieve total cost of ownership advantages over diesel trucks, while fuel-cell trucks will not reach parity until well into the 2030s.

    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:
    Recalibrating our battery system costs to the cell level (Supplementary Table 6), we arrive at around €202090 kWh−1 by 2030 or €202070 kWh−1 by 2050. Several facts underpin the feasibility of the derived costs despite potential non-negligible disruptions caused by raw material shortages, supply chain disruptions, higher inflation levels, increased energy costs or raw material shortages42–44, whereof the latter’s effect would depend on the specific chemistry. Calculated system- and cell-level costs do not fall below original scientific or near-market estimates and announced industry values, as could have happened by the regression. For example, the European Battery Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA)45 targets system costs of around €202075 kWh−1 by 2025 and even below by 2030 and beyond. Plus, Tesla confirmed cell-level cost targets for its 4,680 cylindrical cells of around US$70 kWh−1 at their third quarter Earning Call in 2022—even before US incentive programmes such as the Inflation Reduction Act. The projected ready-to-drive prime costs of the first generation 500-mile Tesla Semi truck, equipped with these cells and suspected 800–900 kWh, stand at roughly US$200,000 in 202346, indicating associated battery system costs below US$150 kWh−1. However, we also address potential strategies for gaining initial market shares by internally subsidizing battery packs.

    Claimed Finding:
    After converting to the cell level, the study forecasts battery costs will decline to about €70 per kWh by 2030.

    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:
    To achieve battery system costs of approximately €2020150 kWh−1 as indicated by our regression to be achievable between 2028 (near market) and 2032 (scientific), cumulative production volumes must range from 1,300 GWh (near market) to 5,200 GWh (scientific). This yields short-term compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) of 39–49%. Those volumes may be feasible in the early 2030s if BETs take large market shares fast, given their head start in the early 2020s. Corresponding LRs would be around 16% (scientific) to 19% (near market). Falling below €2020100 kWh−1, as indicated by our regression to be achievable between 2039 (near market) and 2049 (scientific), would require up to 11,000 GWh (near market) or even 68,000 GWh (scientific), with the former being probably feasible within the late 2030s given that BETs comprise substantial market shares and long-term CAGRs of 25–29%.

    Claimed Finding:
    The authors estimate that achieving sub-€100 kWh-1 battery system costs under near-market assumptions would require about 11 000 GWh of cumulative production.

    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:
    Similarly, to attain fuel cell system costs of approximately €2020150  kW−1, as our regression suggests between 2027 (scientific) and 2035 (near market), cumulative production volumes span from 135,000 units (scientific) to 1.4 million units (near market). The latter appears attainable, considering the broader availability of FCET models anticipated to emerge in the late 2020s1, with short-term CAGRs of 35–46%. Corresponding LRs would be around 14% (scientific) to 26% (near market). Falling below €2020100 kW−1, as indicated by our regression to be achievable between 2040 (scientific) and 2045 (near market), would then demand cumulative volumes from 2.3 million (scientific) to 6.8 million units (near market) and long-term CAGRs of 26–29%.

    Claimed Finding:
    Under the near-market scenario, reducing fuel-cell system costs below €100 kW-1 would call for approximately 6.8 million cumulative units.

    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:
    For both battery and fuel cell data, and similar to Schmidt et al.22, we find that more recent sources embed faster and larger cost-reduction potentials, expressed by the difference between OLS and WLS results (Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6 and Supplementary Table 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    The study finds that more recent data sources indicate slower, not faster, cost-reduction potentials for batteries and fuel cells.

    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:
    Three approaches using two techniques, namely robust norms and outlier removal, strengthened the validity of our original regression results. Precisely, HuberT regression, RANSAC regression and WLS regression with only the central 50% or 80% of observations within five-year time windows yield future costs close to or within our original prediction errors (Supplementary Figs. 7–10 and Supplementary Table 3).

    Claimed Finding:
    Applying robust regression techniques caused the projected future component costs to drop far below the original estimates.

    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:
    protections, guaranteed service levels and disconnection reporting
that are ubiquitous for residential customers within urban and regional
areas are often absent in remote settlements. Remote settlements and
settlements with majority Indigenous population are respectively 18%
and 15% more likely to lack comprehensive regulatory and legal protec-
tions compared with non-remote and non-Indigenous settlements.
These findings show that some communities face energy transition
from an uneven footing in Australia and that action is needed to support
a just transition to avoid reproducing or exacerbating non-recognition
in future energy systems.

    Claimed Finding:
    Indigenous communities are 20% more likely, and remote communities 30% more likely, to lack electricity consumer protections than their 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:
    Remote settlements and Indigenous settlements are more likely
to be underserved on multiple metrics (model 6). Remote settlements
are 18% more likely (vs urban and regional) to be underserved on mul-
tiple metrics, and Indigenous settlements are 15% more likely (vs not
majority Indigenous) to be underserved on multiple metrics (margins
contrast, p = 0.000 for both). Remote settlements and Indigenous settle-
ments are less likely to have solar connection clarity and less likely
to have clear and independent complaints processes (models 3 and 5).
Remote settlements are 38% less likely (vs urban and regional) to have
solar connection clarity and 14% less likely to have clear complaints
processes (margins contrast, p = 0.000 for both). Indigenous settle-
ments are 48% less likely to have solar connection clarity and 10% less
likely to have complaints process clarity, compared with settlements
that are not majority Indigenous (margins contrast, p = 0.000 for both).

    Claimed Finding:
    The data reveal that remote settlements are 38% more likely to enjoy clear solar connection processes than urban or regional areas.

    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:
    For three of our dependent variables, we find that being in a
non-remote settlement perfectly predicts success (models 1, 2 and 4).
That is, all settlements that are urban or regional have legally enforce-
able protections for all customers regarding life support, guaranteed
service levels and disconnection reporting. For these indicators, we
examine variation only within remote settlements (n = 610). Those
remote settlements where over 80% of the population is Indigenous
are less likely to have life-support protections, guaranteed service
levels and disconnection reporting requirements for all customers
(models 1, 2 and 4). Compared with remote settlements that are not
Indigenous, Indigenous settlements are 61% less likely to have life sup-
port protections, 46% less likely to have guaranteed service levels and
63% less likely to have disconnection reporting requirements (margins
contrast, p = 0.000 for all).

    Claimed Finding:
    The study found that every urban or regional settlement had legally enforceable life-support, guaranteed service level, and disconnection reporting protections for all customers.

    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:
    Higher IRSAD scores (indicating a relative lack of disadvantage and
greater advantage in general) are correlated with higher likelihood of
having life-support protections, guaranteed service levels, disconnec-
tion reporting requirements and clear complaints processes. Higher
IRSAD scores are likewise correlated with lower likelihood of being
underserved overall. Higher population is not associated with any
differences in legal protections.

    Claimed Finding:
    Larger settlements were significantly more likely to have clear complaints processes than smaller ones.

    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 review indicates that an estimated 5 million Australians
(approximately 20% of the population) are living in settlements where
not all customers are guaranteed protections across the five dimen-
sions of life support, rooftop solar connection, disconnection report-
ing, guaranteed service levels and clear and independent complaints
processes (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Table 2).

    Claimed Finding:
    Roughly five million Australians—about one in five people—live in places that lack at least one of the five key electricity consumer protections identified in the study.

    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:
    For 161 remote settlements where there are
no consumer-focused regulatory frameworks, life-support protec-
tions are unavailable for both payment types, with potentially severe
implications for residents (Fig. 3a). In 412 settlements prepayment is
incompatible with life support.

    Claimed Finding:
    In the 161 remote settlements without a consumer framework, life-support protections are unavailable only to prepayment customers, while post-pay users remain covered.

    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:
    As of July 2022, only the state of Victoria provides protections
from disconnection for those experiencing family violence (Fig. 3b
and Supplementary Table 6).

    Claimed Finding:
    As of mid-2022, Victoria was the sole Australian jurisdiction that legally protects customers experiencing family violence from electricity disconnection for non-payment.

    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 Australia, very few settlements receive any protections from
disconnection upon non-payment during very hot or very cold tem-
peratures (Fig. 3c and Supplementary Table 7).

    Claimed Finding:
    Most Australian settlements benefit from protections that prevent disconnection during periods of extreme heat or cold.

    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:
    Many remote settlements do not have guaranteed service levels
(Fig. 3d and Supplementary Table 8). guaranteed service levels seek
to compensate eligible customers for unplanned supply interrup-
tions. Community organizations reported slow utility service response
times following damage to electricity infrastructure in remote loca-
tions, which could compound the coercive potential of electricity
supply disruption.

    Claimed Finding:
    The mapping exercise indicates that a substantial number of remote communities lack guaranteed service level schemes intended to compensate households for outages.

    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:
    Retailer definitions of hardship universally exclude prepayment
customers (Supplementary Table 9), as hardship is defined in relation
to either a consumers’ inability to pay bills (which prepay customers do
not receive) or to a specified level of accrued debt (which for prepay is
limited to small amounts of friendly credit). This exclusion by definition
of prepay customers from hardship reporting and supports puts
these customers at a disadvantage relative to other payment types and
increases risk of non-recognition.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study documents that existing retailer hardship policies explicitly omit customers who use prepayment meters.

    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 findings show that adding behavioural interventions to a
referral programme multiplies the effect of providing financial rewards
alone. Incorporating an appeal to reciprocity and further simplifying
the referral process generated 2.0 and 7.5 times as many referrals. The
control condition, on average, generated one referral from every 106
existing clients, while the reciprocity treatment led to one referral
from every 52 clients, and reciprocity + simplification produced one
referral for every 14 clients. By virtue of generating so many referrals,
the reciprocity + simplification treatment led to 5.2 times as many solar
contracts at a lower cost per contract than the baseline rewards condi-
tion. The reciprocity condition generated 2.6 as many contracts as the
control, while also increasing the average quality of nominations. Taken
together, our results demonstrate that administrators of low-income
energy programmes have low-cost, easy-to-implement tools available
to boost programme outcomes by increasing engagement of existing
programme participants.

    Claimed Finding:
    The reciprocity + simplification intervention generated roughly five times as many solar contracts as the control condition.

    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:
    Figure 2a shows the response rates by condition. During the first
17 weeks, 74% of clients in the reciprocity + simplification condition
referred by slip rather than by phone or webform, affirming the slip’s
convenience. The odds of referring were five times as high in the reci-
procity + simplification condition compared with the control (response
rates of 4.22% versus 0.86%, odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval
(CI) 3.16–7.88, P < 0.0001) and three times as high compared with reci-
procity alone (4.22% versus 1.45%, OR 95% CI 2.04–4.33, P < 0.0001;
Supplementary Table 2). Clients in the reciprocity condition were
1.7 times as likely to refer than those in the control, though the com-
parison was less precise (OR 95% CI 0.99–2.84, P = 0.054). Nine months
after the campaign, the differences in response rates across conditions
narrowed but were significantly different at P < 0.05 (Fig. 2a and Sup-
plementary Table 3), indicating that the treatments had lasting effects
and did not simply shift intended referrals sooner.

    Claimed Finding:
    Nine months after the intervention, response rates no longer differed significantly across groups, indicating that treatment effects had vanished.

    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 reciprocity + simplification condition yielded 181 referred
names in the first 17 weeks, 7.5 times more than the control (24
names, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 95% CI 4.66–12.19, P < 0.0001) and
3.7 times more than reciprocity alone (49 names, IRR 95% CI 2.41–5.65,
P < 0.0001), while reciprocity yielded 2 times more than the control
(IRR 95% CI 1.16–3.59, P = 0.013; Supplementary Table 8). Among indi-
viduals who responded to the campaign, clients in the reciprocity +
simplification condition nominated more individuals (1.68 names per
referring client) than either the reciprocity or control conditions (1.32
names in reciprocity, IRR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02–1.56, P = 0.029; 1.09 names in
control, IRR 1.54, 95% CI 1.31–1.80, P < 0.0001; Supplementary Table 8).

    Claimed Finding:
    During the first 17 weeks, the group that received both reciprocity and simplification generated about 7.5 times more referrals than the control group.

    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:
    At 9 months, the total number of nominations remained signifi-
cantly different across conditions (Fig. 2b and Supplementary Table
9), providing additional evidence that the treatments did not merely
shift nominations sooner. Between 17 weeks and 9 months, reciproc-
ity + simplification continued to outperform the control, yielding 2.2
as many additional names (55 versus 25 names, IRR 95% CI 1.30–3.71,
P = 0.003; Supplementary Table 10), only 11 of which came by slip. The
reciprocity-only condition yielded 37 additional names but could not be
statistically distinguished from either group (versus control, P = 0.157;
versus reciprocity + simplification, P = 0.113).

    Claimed Finding:
    Between 17 weeks and nine months, the reciprocity-only treatment added more new referrals than the reciprocity + simplification treatment.

    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:
    One potential drawback of the slip’s format is that it could lead to
lower-quality referrals if it encouraged clients to list multiple names
without considering who would qualify. To evaluate this, we compared
the proportion of referrals per client in each condition who lived in geo-
graphic areas eligible for solar subsidies (Methods and Supplementary
Tables 8 and 9). As shown in Fig. 2b, reciprocity + simplification had a
statistically equivalent proportion of referrals living in eligible areas
as the control (69% versus 71% at 17 weeks, P = 0.793; 73% versus 67%
at 9 months, P = 0.691). In contrast, the reciprocity condition yielded
a significantly higher proportion of eligible nominations at both time-
points, representing a 23–27% improvement over the control at 17 weeks
and 9 months, respectively, and a 28% to 22% improvement over reci-
procity + simplification. We note, however, that because reciproc-
ity + simplification generated far more nominations in total, it led to
7.3 times more qualified nominations than the control at 17 weeks
(124 versus 17; IRR 95% CI 4.17–12.74, P < 0.0001) and three times as many
than reciprocity (124 versus 42; IRR 95% CI 1.89–4.61, P < 0.0001). Simi-
larly, reciprocity alone yielded 2.5 times as many qualified nominations
as the control (95% CI 1.32–4.61, P = 0.005). The differences between
conditions largely persisted at 9 months (Supplementary Table 9).

    Claimed Finding:
    The reciprocity treatment produced a higher proportion of eligible referrals than either the control or the reciprocity + simplification treatments.

    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 also examined the number of signed solar contracts resulting from
each condition. For referrals generated within 17 weeks (Fig. 2d), reci-
procity + simplification led to 26 contracts: 5.2 times the control (IRR
95% CI 1.95–13.8, P < 0.001) and 2.0 times reciprocity alone (IRR 95%
CI 0.94–4.27, P = 0.074; Supplementary Table 8). The reciprocity con-
dition resulted in 2.6 times more contracts than the control, though
the comparison was less precise (IRR 95% CI 0.89–7.60, P = 0.081). At
9 months, the differences between conditions were all different at
P < 0.05 (Supplementary Table 9).

    Claimed Finding:
    Within the first 17 weeks, the reciprocity-only group signed significantly more solar contracts than both the control and the reciprocity + simplification groups.

    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:
    Using back-of-the-envelope calculations (Supplementary
Table 6), we estimate that the reciprocity + simplification condi-
tion, though more expensive in terms of material costs and staff
time needed to screen referrals, was less expensive per resulting
contract than the control, saving 17.8% at 17 weeks (US$522 ver-
sus $635). Reciprocity alone cost 2.5% more per contract than the
control (US$651 versus US$635), but generated more than twice as
many contracts.

    Claimed Finding:
    Despite higher upfront costs, the reciprocity + simplification strategy reduced the cost per resulting contract by nearly 18% relative to the control.

    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 a non-pre-registered analysis, we examined heterogeneity with
respect to whether clients had previously referred (N = 796) or not
(N = 6,875). This type of heterogeneity may be of interest to programme
managers looking to engage more clients in peer referral or to trim costs
by selectively targeting treatments. In all conditions, previous referrers
were more likely to refer than clients who had never referred (Fig. 3 and
Supplementary Table 7). Among previous referrers, only reciprocity
+ simplification led to a significantly greater percentage of responses
than the control condition (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.14–6.71, P = 0.025). Among
individuals who had never referred before, the odds of referring were
nearly sixfold higher in the reciprocity + simplification treatment
compared with the control (OR 5.92, 95% CI 3.41–10.28, P < 0.0001),
and 1.9 times higher in reciprocity than the control, though the latter
comparison was less precise (OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.99–3.51, P = 0.052).

    Claimed Finding:
    Among people who had never referred before, the reciprocity + simplification condition increased the odds of referring by nearly sixfold compared with the control.

    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 further reveal potential trade-offs in terms of the quan-
tity and quality of referrals generated. Compared with only sending
reminders of the referral rewards programme, adding an appeal to
reciprocity increased the number of referrals but also the propor-
tion who were likely to qualify for solar subsidies. The salience of the
dollar along with language thanking recipients for being part of the
non-profit’s solar community may have encouraged recipients to think
more deeply about who among their peers might live in qualified areas.
Further adding a referral slip and stamped return envelope counter-
acted this effect, as the proportion of quality referrals was lower but
equivalent to the control. The ease of referring by slip, however, more
than compensated for this dip in quality by generating considerably
more nominations and ultimately more installations.

    Claimed Finding:
    Adding the referral slip not only boosted the total number of nominations but also raised the proportion of high-quality referrals above that of the control.

    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 effects of reciprocity + simplification over time shed light on
what impedes peer referral. The large, immediate effect of the referral
slip suggests that having to phone in referrals or visit a website cre-
ates friction. The effect of reciprocity + simplification was also long
lasting, with referrals continuing to come in at a higher rate than the
control, even months after receiving the dollar and slip. As fewer slips
were returned over time, this finding may indicate that the slips, by
listing what information was needed to nominate someone, reduced
uncertainty about what referring entails. This could explain why the
reciprocity + simplification treatment was most effective at getting
first-time referrers.

    Claimed Finding:
    The study showed that the positive effect of the referral slip dissipated quickly, with referral rates reverting to control levels within a few months.

    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:
    Supply-side policies lower statewide crude oil production but
with different temporal and spatial patterns (Fig. 2a and Supplemen-
tary Fig. 17). Setbacks applied to new wells, excise taxes applied per
unit of production and carbon taxes applied per tonne of GHG emis-
sions lead to continuous declines that outpace that of the BAU trajec-
tory, albeit with different pathways. In general, a setback and an excise
tax result in lower oil production in each year when compared with a
carbon tax that is calibrated to achieve the same 2045 GHG emissions
target. This is because a carbon tax on extraction emissions targets
oil fields with higher GHG emissions intensities, whereas a setback
targets oil fields in more populated areas and an excise tax targets
production declines among more costly oil fields. Supplementary
Fig. 1 shows that the relationship between production costs and emis-
sions intensities is not systematic. As a result, the fields that reduce
production under a carbon tax will be unique from the fields that
reduce production under an excise tax that achieves an equivalent
reduction in carbon emissions.

    Claimed Finding:
    An excise tax calibrated to meet the same 2045 emissions goal as a carbon tax leads to lower oil production in every year than the carbon tax does.

    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:
    There is close correspondence between statewide oil production
and emissions pathways (Fig. 2b). As with oil production, setbacks,
excise taxes and carbon taxes induce a continuous decline. By con-
struction, because excise- and carbon-tax levels were calibrated to
result in the same 2045 GHG emissions as the corresponding setback
distances, the GHG emissions trajectories of setbacks, excise taxes and
carbon taxes are more closely aligned than oil-production trajectories.
Cumulative 2020–2045 GHG emissions reductions from carbon taxes
are consistently lower than setbacks and excise taxes for each 2045
GHG emissions target, irrespective of the oil-price projections (Fig. 2c
and Supplementary Figs. 24 and 25). However, excise taxes, depend-
ing on the tax level required to meet the GHG emissions target under
different oil prices, could have slightly lower or higher cumulative
GHG emissions compared to setbacks. When considering alternative
oil-price projections, annual GHG emissions reduction in 2045 for a
1 mile setback is substantially lower (33%) under EIA’s high oil-price
projection (Supplementary Fig. 24), while it nearly reaches the 90%
reduction target under EIA’s low oil-price projection (89% reduction)
(Supplementary Fig. 25).

    Claimed Finding:
    Carbon taxes provide larger cumulative 2020–2045 greenhouse-gas reductions than excise taxes for any targeted emissions level.

    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:
    Among policies, setbacks consistently achieve the greatest health
benefits, both in total and per unit of cumulative avoided GHG emis-
sions (Fig. 3a,d). This result validates the intent behind setbacks, a
policy designed specifically for improving health outcomes by elimi-
nating oil extraction from fields that are situated near residences,
schools and other locations where people live and work. However, per
unit of cumulative avoided GHG emissions, longer-distance setbacks
yield smaller health benefits (Fig. 3d) because the marginal pollution
from avoided wells affects a smaller number of people.

    Claimed Finding:
    Of the three supply-side policies examined, setbacks deliver the highest overall health benefits in terms of avoided mortality.

    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:
    For statewide worker compensation losses, the pattern flips
across supply-side policies. For a given 2045 GHG emissions target,
setbacks consistently generate slightly higher worker compensation
losses across the state than excise taxes, which exceed that for carbon
taxes (Fig. 3b). This is because setbacks experience a drop in produc-
tion larger than excise and carbon taxes designed to meet the same
2045 GHG emissions target, and they affect wells in counties that
have a higher employment intensity (jobs per barrel of oil produced).
Excise taxes lead to greater worker compensation loss because they
are less cost effective at targeting GHG emissions reductions com-
pared with carbon taxes, requiring a larger drop in oil production
and associated employment losses to meet the same GHG emissions
target. The ranking across policies is preserved when considering
worker compensation losses per unit of cumulative avoided GHG
emissions (Fig. 3e).

    Claimed Finding:
    For equivalent 2045 emissions targets, carbon taxes cause the greatest statewide worker compensation losses, while setbacks cause the least.

    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:
    For avoided climate change damages, setbacks deliver slightly
greater cumulative benefits for each 2045 GHG emissions target com-
pared with excise and carbon taxes (Fig. 3c). These differences are
even smaller across policies on a per unit of cumulative avoided GHG
emissions basis (Fig. 3f).

    Claimed Finding:
    The three policies differ only marginally in the climate damages they avoid per tonne of greenhouse-gas emissions reduced.

    Answer (SUPPORT / CONTRADICT):

Answer: SUPPORT