## Reader references — 25 October 2026 Added a [proof-scope reference](https://vultax.com/datasets/research-proof-library-2026-10-25/articles/economic-derivatives-auction-archive.md) to the reader’s Sources list. Selected exact-rational calculations and displayed-value consistency checks, checked by Lean 4.35.0, Lean kernel replay and Nanoda. Not a proof of the underlying observations, statistical conclusions, legal claims or production code. The data edition remains 0.3.2; its dataset files, citation files, checksums, figures and evaluation protocol are unchanged. # Public release 0.3.2 — 2026-10-25 Published by Christopher Geneth Kurg. Promoted the existing reader edition with public publication metadata and credited exports. Numeric records, original source credits and evaluation protocols are unchanged. Raw source archives and private materials remain excluded. No completed calibration/skill result or DOI is claimed. # Version and corrections ## 0.3.1-research-review — 22 October 2026 Corrections from an independent internal review of 0.3.0, made before any release. **No source value changed.** Documentation, metadata and wording changed, so the affected checksums changed. - **GW-009 (method):** Evaluation protocol 1.1: the interval midpoint is no longer described as the paper's within-range uniform assumption; outcome-space linear interpolation, the assumption-free interval and randomized positions are distinct treatments; probability tests use an explicit derived normalization; endpoint handling before inverse-normal transforms is stated. - **GW-010 (wording):** The opening and reveal paragraphs now refer to nonfarm payroll employment rather than 'the entire US economy'. - **GW-011 (clarification):** Exact-boundary results are described as the cumulative mass of the preceding ranges, with the tie settlement convention unknown (article, exercise and script, descriptor, protocol). The tie example is identified as the earliest of the 14 claims cases; the earliest boundary case overall is the 12 December 2002 retail-sales release. - **GW-012 (documentation):** Proposed corrections contact set to Sophia Kurg ; claims that nothing was computed before the protocol are narrowed to calibration and scoring statistics; private copies of cited sources kept with retrieval dates and hashes. Still not done: review by the original creators, peer review, a repository deposit, a DOI, a licence decision, and any calibration or skill evaluation. ## 0.3.0-research-review — 22 October 2026 Editorial and research-use pass. **No source value changed**: every bound, probability, date and announced value is identical to 0.2.0, and the bin export is byte-identical. The edition label changed in the data files, so their checksums changed. - Expanded the article into a standalone feature, with page-referenced explanations of the auctions, mass versus density, uncertainty versus disagreement, prices versus beliefs, and announcements versus revisions. - Added rule-based worked examples (ordinary, tie, mixed widths) beside the January 2004 opening, and a derived *per unit of width* view. - Added credited SVG and PNG chart export recording source, authors, record ID, units, edition, edition-file checksum and reveal state; selection links now also carry reveal state and view. - Added `auction-bins.csv` and `auction-releases.csv`, derived only from the edition and re-derived independently by `validate.py`. - Added a methods and data descriptor, a teaching exercise with script, a prespecified evaluation protocol, a correction path and a share card. - Strengthened `validate.py`: omitted source bins must be missing; CSVs re-derived with types; edition labels consistent; no unlisted data files; built page must embed the current edition. Corrections in this version: - **GW-005 (interpretation):** examples carry explicit selection rules; the opening example is identified as chosen for surprise. - **GW-006 (bibliographic):** page references cite the FRBSF version; package, FRBSF, NBER and 2007 published versions listed as distinct objects. - **GW-007 (clarification):** permission to republish is separated from review or endorsement at the opening and on exports. - **GW-008 (clarification):** current BLS vintages shown as context only; announced values remain the record. Still not done: original-author review, peer review, a repository deposit, a DOI, a licence decision, any full-sample evaluation. ## 0.2.0-research-review — 22 October 2026 Improves scholarly reuse of the existing split. Original auction probabilities, announced values and prepared map values are unchanged. The original combined Opus work and the first split remain preserved separately. Added source receipts and links for selected records/comparisons, research notes, a machine-readable dictionary, reproducible validation and separate source/edition citations. Added 2,235 bin rows as line-delimited JSON. This is a private review edition. No public deposit, new DOI, original-author review or peer review is recorded. Functional validation is a separate claim from research conclusions. - **GW-001 (bibliographic):** Distinguish FRBSF Working Paper 2005-26 (September 2005) from NBER Working Paper 11929 (January 2006). The previous CFF attached 2005 to the NBER URL. - **GW-002 (interpretation):** Make the calibration explanation conditional; one selected 3% event is not an empirical calibration result. - **GW-003 (clarification):** Separate probability masses from densities, original announcements from revisions, and day-level dates from intraday evidence. - **Reader flow:** Remove the opening result spoiler so the reveal exercise works as intended. ## 0.1.0-split-review — 22 October 2026 Separated the completed combined article into two independent projects, preserving its source-specific interaction and adding basic provenance metadata. ## Future corrections Record the affected edition, records/files and fields; what changed and why; the supporting evidence; and whether values, interpretation or citation changed. Never silently overwrite a published edition. A future deposited version should link to its predecessor and retain a readable correction history. A correction does not imply endorsement by the original researchers.