“In a Brazilian Amazon randomized trial, the flexible payment contract saved slightly more forest, while the fixed zero-deforestation contract had a higher benefit-cost ratio.”

Parts of this hold up; the rest is not settled. 1 holds up so far; 1 not yet settled.

0.4011 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 for all claims together. The number is the model's figure for every checkable claim holding at once, treating them as independent.

The statement as a whole, read from the 2 claims below. Each claim is scored on its own; this reading only counts them. Provisional until audited.

Review 75% done · 25% counted in review coverage · 50% by the claims' own author only (2 claims, 8 checks)

Share:

Checked in Galedra: score 0.40, evidence mixed · not yet reviewed by anyone else “In a Brazilian Amazon randomized trial, the flexible payment contract saved slightly more forest, while the fixed zero-deforestation contract had a higher benefit-cost ratio.” https://galedra.org/investigations/01a0ea87-479a-7057-a59e-129212119cd3

“In a Brazilian Amazon randomized trial, the flexible payment contract saved slightly more forest, while the fixed zero-deforestation contract had a higher benefit-cost ratio.”

Say instead: The counted passage gives the contract comparison but omits the trial's time range, sample population, denominator, and Brazilian-randomized-study context.

Unresolved · 0.5000 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 · review checks 1 of 4 · provisional until audited.

3 of 4 review checks done · 1 counted · 2 by the author only

See the evidence · Claim card

“In the same trial, the flexible payment contract's reported cost per hectare of forest saved was 3,056 BRL, versus 4,360 BRL for the stringent contract.”

Supported · 0.8022 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 · review checks 1 of 4 · provisional until audited.

3 of 4 review checks done · 1 counted · 2 by the author only

See the evidence · Claim card