Paper Writing

Paper Writing Skill

Role in Workflow

This skill is the authoritative LaTeX template library and writing convention reference for the econometrics plugin. It is designed to be called by the /write command (Phase 9) rather than invoked independently.

Division of labor with /write command:

Narrative Writing Principles

An empirical economics paper is a causal story. Every section must advance the narrative; no section should be a standalone island of results.

The Narrative Arc

Introduction  →  Literature  →  Data  →  Strategy  →  Results
     ↑                                                    ↓
 (question)                                          (answer)
     ↑                                                    ↓
Conclusion  ←  Discussion  ←  Mechanisms  ←  Robustness
  (so what)                                    (credibility)

Each section must:

1. Open with one sentence bridging from the previous section
2. Close with one sentence previewing the next section (except Conclusion)

Figure and Table Integration Rule

Every figure or table reference in the text must accomplish three things in the same paragraph:

Never write: "See Table X." or "Figure Y presents the results." without extracting and interpreting the number.

Main Text vs. Appendix — Placement Decision

Keep in main text (direct support for the main causal story):

• Summary statistics table (Table 1)
• Main regression table (Table 2)
• Core identification figure (event study, RDD binscatter, IV first-stage)
• Primary heterogeneity table (if it is a core contribution)

Move to appendix (supporting/supplementary material):

• Full robustness table (multiple specification columns)
• Balance/pre-treatment tests (DiD, IV)
• Variable definitions table
• Additional heterogeneity subgroups
• Sample construction flowchart
• Supplementary mechanism figures

When referencing appendix items in the main text, use: "Appendix Table A1 reports..." or "(see Appendix Figure A1)".

LaTeX Preamble (Authoritative)

This is the canonical preamble for economics journal submissions. The /write command uses this directly — there is no separate preamble in the command file.

\documentclass[12pt]{article}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}
\usepackage[margin=1.25in]{geometry}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{booktabs,caption,threeparttable,makecell}
\usepackage{pdflscape}         % landscape pages for wide tables (\begin{landscape})
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{natbib}
\usepackage[title,titletoc]{appendix}  % appendix environment with lettered sections
\usepackage{subcaption}
% \usepackage{microtype}   % enable if TeX distribution supports it

\setstretch{1.5}           % 1.5x body spacing -- standard for journal submissions
\captionsetup{labelfont=bf, labelsep=period, font=small}
\hypersetup{colorlinks=true, linkcolor=black, citecolor=black, urlcolor=blue}
\graphicspath{{../figures/}}   % relative to paper/ -- one level up to reach figures/
\bibliographystyle{aer}        % AER author-year; use chicago for other journals

Front Matter (First Page)

The global \setstretch{1.5} inflates the title block unless overridden. Wrap front matter in \begin{spacing}{1.0}.

\begin{document}

\thispagestyle{empty}
\begin{spacing}{1.0}
\begin{center}
  {\large\bfseries [PAPER TITLE]}\par
  \vspace{0.7em}
  {\normalsize\bfseries [AUTHOR NAME]}\par
  {\small\textit{[AFFILIATION]} \quad \href{mailto:[EMAIL]}{[EMAIL]}}\par
  {\small [MONTH YEAR]}\par
\end{center}
\vspace{0.5em}
\input{sections/abstract}
\vspace{0.4em}
\noindent\textbf{JEL Codes:} [J23, J31, O33]
\quad\textbf{Keywords:} [keyword1, keyword2, keyword3]
\vspace{0.3em}
\noindent\footnotesize\textit{I thank [acknowledgements]. All errors are my own.}
\normalsize
\end{spacing}
\clearpage

% NO \tableofcontents -- not standard in economics journal submissions

\input{sections/introduction}
\input{sections/literature}
\input{sections/data}
\input{sections/strategy}
\input{sections/results}
\input{sections/robustness}
\input{sections/heterogeneity}
\input{sections/discussion}
\input{sections/conclusion}

\bibliography{references}

% ── Appendix ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
\begin{appendices}

% Reset counters for appendix tables and figures
\renewcommand{\thetable}{A\arabic{table}}
\renewcommand{\thefigure}{A\arabic{figure}}
\setcounter{table}{0}
\setcounter{figure}{0}

\input{sections/appendix}   % contains all supplementary tables and figures

\end{appendices}

\end{document}

Key Front-Matter Conventions

• No \titlepage environment -- forces abstract to a separate page
• No \tableofcontents -- not standard in economics submissions
• \begin{spacing}{1.0} for title block -- prevents 1.5x stretch from inflating spacing
• \thispagestyle{empty} -- suppresses page number on cover page
• Title font: \large\bfseries -- \LARGE combined with 1.5x stretch uses too much vertical space
• \citet{} vs \citep{}: use \citet{Author2020} for "Author (2020) show that..." and \citep{Author2020} for parenthetical "(Author 2020)"

Causal Language Calibration

This table governs language intensity across ALL sections. The causal language level is determined by /write from results-memo.md §4 and passed to this skill. Apply consistently throughout the paper -- do not mix levels within a single draft.

Cross-section enforcement: once the level is set, apply it uniformly in the Abstract, Introduction, Results, and Conclusion. The Empirical Strategy section always describes assumptions in the formal/neutral register regardless of the level.

Section Templates

1. Abstract

Format: 150-200 words, 5-6 sentences, fixed structure.

\begin{abstract}
\noindent
[RESEARCH QUESTION IN ONE SENTENCE].
Using [DATA SOURCE] covering [N] [UNITS] over [PERIOD],
we exploit [IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY] to identify
the [causal/estimated] effect of [D] on [Y].
We find that [D] [CAUSAL VERB] [Y] by [MAGNITUDE] [UNITS/PERCENT/SD]
([SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT, e.g., significant at the 1\% level]).
[HETEROGENEITY OR ROBUSTNESS SENTENCE --
"This effect is concentrated among [SUBGROUP] and robust to [CHECKS]."]
Our results [CONTRIBUTION VERB: inform/challenge/extend]
[POLICY/THEORY IMPLICATION].
\end{abstract}

Checklist:

• Contains the main coefficient magnitude (not just direction)
• Names the identification strategy explicitly
• Causal verb consistent with the calibration table above
• Does NOT merely report statistical significance without magnitude

2. Introduction

Top-5 journal introductions are typically 4-6 pages (approx. 1,500-2,000 words). Follow the five-paragraph structure.

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}

% -- Paragraph 1: Hook + Research Question + Main Finding (numbers required) --
% Rule: by the end of paragraph 1, the reader must know (1) what question,
% (2) what finding, (3) the magnitude. Never open with "This paper examines..."
[HOOK SENTENCE -- a striking fact, statistic, or policy puzzle].
This paper [provides causal evidence / documents] that [D] [CAUSAL VERB] [Y]:
a [UNIT CHANGE] in [D] [CAUSAL VERB] [Y] by [MAGNITUDE]
([SIGNIFICANCE]; s.e.\ = [SE]).

% -- Paragraph 2: Why is this hard to estimate? (endogeneity threats) --
Estimating the [causal / true] effect of [D] on [Y] is challenging
for [two/three] reasons.
First, [OVB THREAT -- name the omitted variable and its bias direction].
Second, [REVERSE CAUSALITY THREAT].
[Third, [MEASUREMENT ERROR / SELECTION CONCERN].]
Prior work using [OLS / cross-sectional comparisons] is likely to
[overstate/understate] the effect because [DIRECTION AND SOURCE OF BIAS].

% -- Paragraph 3: Identification strategy and data --
We address these challenges by exploiting [SOURCE OF EXOGENOUS VARIATION].
[EXPLAIN WHY THIS VARIATION IS PLAUSIBLY EXOGENOUS -- one to two sentences].
Our data come from [DATA SOURCE], covering [N UNITS] over [PERIOD],
yielding [OBS] observations.

% -- Paragraph 4: Summary of findings (magnitudes + heterogeneity + robustness) --
Our main finding is that [RESTATE MAIN RESULT WITH COEFFICIENT].
[ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE -- relative to mean or SD].
[HETEROGENEITY -- one sentence if applicable].
The results are robust to [ROBUSTNESS SUMMARY -- one sentence].

% -- Paragraph 5: Contribution + Roadmap --
% Rule: no more than 3 contribution statements; roadmap no more than 5 sentences.
This paper contributes to [STRAND 1] by [CONTRIBUTION 1].
[It also contributes to [STRAND 2] by [CONTRIBUTION 2].]
Unlike \citet{CLOSEST PAPER}, we [KEY DISTINCTION].
The remainder of the paper proceeds as follows.
Section~\ref{sec:literature} reviews related literature.
Section~\ref{sec:data} describes the data.
Section~\ref{sec:strategy} presents the empirical strategy.
Section~\ref{sec:results} reports main results.
Section~\ref{sec:robustness} presents robustness checks.
Section~\ref{sec:conclusion} concludes.

Introduction prohibitions:

• "This paper examines..." as the opening sentence
• Reporting significance only, no magnitude
• More than 3 contribution statements
• Roadmap paragraph longer than 5 sentences
• Any equation or technical notation in the introduction

3. Literature Review

\section{Related Literature}
\label{sec:literature}

% Organize by research STRAND (thematic), NOT chronologically.
% Typical: 2-4 strands, 1-3 paragraphs each.

% -- Strand 1: Core empirical literature --
This paper builds on [NUMBER] strands of literature.
The first strand examines [BROAD TOPIC].
\citet{Seminal1} and \citet{Seminal2} established [FOUNDATIONAL FINDING].
More recently, \citet{Recent1} show [KEY FINDING] using [DATA/METHOD],
and \citet{Recent2} document [COMPLEMENTARY RESULT] in [CONTEXT].
Unlike these papers, we [KEY DISTINCTION -- method, context, or mechanism].

% -- Strand 2: Identification approach --
The second strand uses [SIMILAR IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY] to study related questions.
\citet{Author3} exploit [INSTRUMENT/EVENT] to identify [EFFECT], finding [RESULT].
Our approach is closest to \citet{Author4}, who [BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THEIR DESIGN].
We extend their work by [HOW WE DIFFER].

% -- Strand 3: Mechanism or theoretical background (if applicable) --

% -- Explicit contribution positioning --
This paper contributes to these literatures in two ways.
First, [CONTRIBUTION 1: the new empirical evidence you provide].
Second, [CONTRIBUTION 2: new context, method, or mechanism].

4. Data

\section{Data}
\label{sec:data}

\subsection{Data Sources and Sample Construction}

Our primary data come from [DATA SOURCE], which covers
[UNIT OF OBSERVATION] over the period [START YEAR]--[END YEAR].
[ONE TO TWO SENTENCES describing the data content and collection method].

We construct our analysis sample by [SAMPLE SELECTION STEPS].
We exclude [EXCLUSION CRITERIA AND REASON],
resulting in a final sample of [N] [UNITS] and [OBS] observations.

\subsection{Variable Definitions}

Our main outcome variable is [Y], defined as [PRECISE DEFINITION].
[TREATMENT VARIABLE D] takes value one if [CONDITION] and zero otherwise.
[INSTRUMENT Z] measures [DEFINITION -- for IV papers].
Variable definitions follow [REFERENCE IF STANDARD DEFINITION].

\subsection{Descriptive Statistics}

Table~\ref{tab:sumstats} reports summary statistics for the main analysis sample.
The average [Y] is [MEAN] (standard deviation [SD]).
[D PERCENT]\% of [UNITS] are [TREATED / ABOVE THRESHOLD].
[KEY OBSERVATION ABOUT DATA DISTRIBUTION OR NOTABLE PATTERN].
[IF DiD/IV: Table~\ref{tab:balance} reports pre-treatment balance.
The treatment and control groups are similar on [KEY COVARIATES],
consistent with [PARALLEL TRENDS / EXCLUSION RESTRICTION].]

5. Empirical Strategy

This section receives the most scrutiny from referees. Draw directly from model-spec.md and identification-memo.md; do not re-derive the model.

\section{Empirical Strategy}
\label{sec:strategy}

\subsection{Baseline Specification}

% Use the equation exactly as specified in model-spec.md Section 2
Our baseline specification is:

\begin{equation}
  [MAIN EQUATION FROM model-spec.md]
  \label{eq:baseline}
\end{equation}

\noindent where $[Y_{it}]$ is [OUTCOME DEFINITION],
$[D_{it}]$ is [TREATMENT DEFINITION],
$\mathbf{X}_{it}$ is a vector of controls including [CONTROL LIST],
$[FE NOTATION]$ are [ENTITY/TIME] fixed effects,
and $\varepsilon_{it}$ is the error term.
$[PARAMETER]$ is the coefficient of interest; it measures
[WHAT THE PARAMETER IDENTIFIES -- ATE/ATT/LATE and the population it applies to].
Standard errors are clustered at the [LEVEL] level to account for
[SERIAL/SPATIAL CORRELATION -- state the economic reason explicitly].

\subsection{Identification}

% State each assumption formally and in plain language.
% Always preview where you test it.
The key identifying assumption is [ASSUMPTION IN PLAIN LANGUAGE].
Formally:

\begin{equation*}
  [FORMAL STATEMENT -- e.g., parallel trends, relevance, exclusion restriction]
\end{equation*}

This assumption would be violated if [SPECIFIC, CONCRETE THREAT].
We provide evidence supporting this assumption in
Section~\ref{sec:robustness}, where we show [BRIEF PREVIEW OF TEST RESULT].

% FOR IV -- add exclusion restriction paragraph:
% The exclusion restriction requires that [Z] affects [Y] only through [D].
% This could be violated if [SPECIFIC VIOLATION SCENARIO].
% We argue this is unlikely because [ECONOMIC ARGUMENT].

% FOR RDD -- add continuity / no-manipulation paragraph
% FOR DiD -- add parallel trends + no-anticipation paragraph

6. Results

\section{Results}
\label{sec:results}

% Rule: Lead with the number. Never open with "Table X shows our results."

\subsection{Main Results}

[MAIN COEFFICIENT AS FIRST CLAUSE -- e.g., "A one-unit increase in D
[CAUSAL VERB] Y by [VALUE] (s.e.\ = [SE], [SIGNIFICANCE])."]
Table~\ref{tab:main} reports estimates of equation~\eqref{eq:baseline}.
Column~(1) presents the baseline specification without controls.
Adding [CONTROL SET] in column~(2) [leaves the estimate stable at /
reduces it to] [VALUE], [INTERPRETATION OF CHANGE].
Our preferred specification in column~([N]) includes [FULL CONTROLS AND FE]
and yields [FINAL ESTIMATE] ([SE], [SIGNIFICANCE]).

% Economic significance -- mandatory
To assess economic significance, note that the sample mean of [Y] is [MEAN].
Our estimate implies that [D] [CAUSAL VERB] [Y] by
[MAGNITUDE PERCENT]\% relative to the mean,
or approximately [SD-UNITS] standard deviations.
[COMPARISON: This is [larger/comparable/smaller] than
\citet{CLOSEST PAPER}'s estimate of [THEIR VALUE] using [THEIR METHOD].]

% Event study / dynamic effects (DiD papers)
[Figure~\ref{fig:eventstudy} plots event-study coefficients $\hat{\beta}_k$
for $k \in [-K, K]$ relative to the treatment date.
Pre-treatment coefficients are small and indistinguishable from zero
(joint $F$-test: $p = $ [P-VALUE]), supporting parallel trends.
Post-treatment coefficients are [positive/negative] and [growing/stable/declining],
consistent with [INTERPRETATION].]

% IMPORTANT: Tables are always in separate files under tables/
% The paper.tex structure handles \input{../tables/table_main.tex}
% Never write \begin{tabular}...\end{tabular} inline in section files

7. Robustness

\section{Robustness}
\label{sec:robustness}

% Open with the conclusion, then present evidence
Table~\ref{tab:robustness} presents a battery of robustness checks.
Our main finding is stable: the coefficient on [D] ranges from [MIN] to [MAX]
across all specifications, remaining statistically significant at the
[\%] level in [N of M] cases.

\subsection{Inference Robustness}
[Column~(1) replicates the preferred specification with [ALTERNATIVE SE TYPE].
The coefficient is [VALUE] ([SE]), nearly identical to the baseline.]

\subsection{Sample Robustness}
[Column~(2) excludes [GROUP / OUTLIER CRITERION].
Column~(3) restricts the sample to [SUBSAMPLE].
Estimates range from [MIN] to [MAX], consistent with the baseline.]

\subsection{Specification Robustness}
[Column~([N]) uses [ALTERNATIVE FUNCTIONAL FORM / CONTROL SET / BANDWIDTH].
The coefficient is [VALUE], [MAGNITUDE CHANGE AND INTERPRETATION].]

\subsection{Identification Checks}

% DiD: Pre-trend test
[Figure~\ref{fig:eventstudy} shows no differential pre-trends
(joint $F$-test: $p = $ [P]).]

% DiD/IV: Placebo
[Assigning treatment [one year earlier / to untreated units] yields
$\hat{\beta} = $ [NEAR-ZERO VALUE] ([SE]), confirming our result is not
driven by pre-existing trends.]

% RDD: McCrary density test
[The density of [RUNNING VARIABLE] is continuous at the threshold
($p = $ [P]), ruling out sorting around the cutoff.]

% IV: First-stage strength
[The first-stage $F$-statistic on [Z] is [F], well above the
Stock-Yogo critical value of 10, ruling out weak-instrument concerns.]

% Template for any coefficient that moves materially:
% In column ([N]), [WHAT CHANGES]. The estimate [increases/decreases] to [VALUE],
% reflecting [ECONOMIC REASON]. This does not challenge the main conclusion
% because [ARGUMENT].

8. Heterogeneity and Mechanisms

\section{Heterogeneity and Mechanisms}
\label{sec:heterogeneity}

\subsection{Heterogeneous Treatment Effects}

% Always: state the theory first, then show the data
[THEORETICAL REASON why heterogeneity is expected along [DIMENSION]].
If [MECHANISM], we would expect the effect to be larger among [SUBGROUP].

Table~\ref{tab:heterogeneity} reports treatment effects by [DIMENSION].
The effect is [X times larger / present only / absent] for [SUBGROUP 1]
(column~([A]): $\hat{\beta} = $ [VALUE], s.e.\ = [SE])
relative to [SUBGROUP 2]
(column~([B]): $\hat{\beta} = $ [VALUE], s.e.\ = [SE]).
[The interaction term is statistically significant ($p = $ [P]).]
[SUBGROUP 1] may respond more because [ECONOMIC REASON].

\subsection{Mechanisms}

% Language intensity follows the causal calibration table:
%   Direct mechanism evidence (externally identified) -> "provides direct evidence for"
%   Suggestive / descriptive test -> "is consistent with"
%   Ruling out alternatives -> "rules out" / "cannot be explained by"

Our results [ARE CONSISTENT WITH / PROVIDE DIRECT EVIDENCE FOR] [MAIN MECHANISM].
[We examine [INTERMEDIATE OUTCOME Z], which should [INCREASE/DECREASE]
if [MECHANISM] is operative.
Table~\ref{tab:mechanisms} shows that [D] [VERB] [Z] by [MAGNITUDE] ([SIGNIFICANCE]),
consistent with [MECHANISM].]

An alternative explanation is [COMPETING MECHANISM].
However, this predicts [TESTABLE IMPLICATION], which we do not observe in [EVIDENCE].
[We therefore rule out / cannot rule out] [ALTERNATIVE].

9. Discussion

\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:discussion}

\subsection{External Validity}

Our estimates apply most directly to [POPULATION / CONTEXT / TIME PERIOD].
Several factors may limit generalizability.
First, [LIMITATION 1 -- e.g., single country, specific sector].
Whether these findings generalize to [OTHER CONTEXT] is an open question.
Second, [LIMITATION 2 -- e.g., identification relies on a particular event].
Third, [LIMITATION 3 -- data quality, partial compliance, SUTVA].

\subsection{Policy Implications}

Our findings suggest that [POLICY INTERVENTION] could [EFFECT ON OUTCOME].
[BACK-OF-ENVELOPE: scaling up by [FACTOR] implies [AGGREGATE EFFECT].]
Policymakers should be cautious because [CAVEAT --
general equilibrium effects, targeting, political economy, compliance].

10. Conclusion

Top-5 conclusions: 1-2 pages maximum. Do not introduce new results.

\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}

% 6 elements, approx. 6-8 sentences total

% (1) Question + method (1 sentence)
This paper examined [RESEARCH QUESTION] using [IDENTIFICATION STRATEGY]
and [DATA SOURCE].

% (2) Main findings with magnitudes (2-3 sentences)
We find that [D] [CAUSAL VERB] [Y] by [MAGNITUDE] ([SIGNIFICANCE]).
[HETEROGENEITY FINDING IF APPLICABLE].
[MECHANISM FINDING IF APPLICABLE].

% (3) Robustness summary (1 sentence)
These results are robust to [ROBUSTNESS CHECKS SUMMARY].

% (4) Policy / theory implications (2-3 sentences)
For policy, our findings suggest [IMPLICATION].
For theory, they [SUPPORT / CHALLENGE / EXTEND] [THEORETICAL MECHANISM/VIEW].

% (5) Limitations (1-2 sentences)
Our analysis has limitations. [MOST IMPORTANT LIMITATION -- honest but brief].

% (6) Future directions (1-2 sentences)
Future work could [DIRECTION 1 -- natural next step].
[DIRECTION 2 -- broader question opened by this paper].

Conclusion prohibitions:

• Any result not already presented in the body of the paper
• Section-by-section recap ("In Section 2 we showed...")
• "More research is needed" without specifics
• Exceeding 2 pages

Compile Workflow (Authoritative)

Step 1 — LaTeX → PDF

Always run four commands in this exact sequence. Skipping BibTeX leaves all \cite{} commands as [?] in the final PDF.

cd [workspace]/paper/
pdflatex -interaction=nonstopmode paper.tex   # pass 1: build .aux file
bibtex paper                                  # resolve citations -- produces .bbl
pdflatex -interaction=nonstopmode paper.tex   # pass 2: embed bibliography
pdflatex -interaction=nonstopmode paper.tex   # pass 3: fix all cross-references

# Inspect the log
grep -i "overfull\|undefined\|missing\|error" paper.log
grep "Overfull .hbox" paper.log          # >10pt = visible overflow, fix it
grep "File.*not found" paper.log         # missing package
grep "Citation.*undefined" paper.log    # missing .bib entry

Auto-fix for the four most common errors:

Step 2 — LaTeX → DOCX (via pandoc)

After a successful PDF compile, export DOCX for co-author review and journal submission systems that require Word format.

cd [workspace]/paper/

# Preferred: pandoc with citeproc (preserves math, citations, cross-refs)
pandoc paper.tex \
  --bibliography=references.bib \
  --citeproc \
  -o paper.docx

# Verify the output exists and has non-trivial size
ls -lh paper.docx

If pandoc is not installed:

# Ubuntu/Debian
apt-get install -y pandoc 2>/dev/null || true
# macOS
brew install pandoc 2>/dev/null || true
# Check version
pandoc --version | head -1

Fallback (lower fidelity, no pandoc needed):

libreoffice --headless --convert-to docx paper.pdf --outdir .

Pandoc known limitations — inform the user if these apply:

• Complex LaTeX tables may render as plain text in DOCX; the PDF remains the authoritative version
• \begin{landscape} pages convert to normal portrait pages in DOCX (landscape formatting is PDF-only)
• \citet{}/\citep{} resolve correctly only when --citeproc and --bibliography are passed

Compile Confirmation

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
✅ pdflatex pass 1-3 + bibtex: no errors
✅ No undefined references
✅ No missing citations
⚠️  Overfull \hbox (2.3pt) — minor, acceptable
✅ DOCX exported via pandoc
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Output: paper/paper.pdf  ([N] pages)
        paper/paper.docx

Version Management

Every time a draft is created or revised, the /write command saves a versioned copy. This skill does not write files directly -- it provides templates; the command handles file output.

paper_v1.0_YYYYMMDD.tex   # initial draft
paper_v1.1_YYYYMMDD.tex   # first revision
paper_v2.0_YYYYMMDD.tex   # major rewrite

If called in Mode B (standalone) to revise a single section, always confirm: "Should I overwrite the existing file or save as a new version?" Default to saving a new version.

Writing Tips

Introductions

• First sentence must contain a substantive claim or striking fact -- never "This paper examines..."
• State the main result with a number by the end of paragraph 1
• Limit contribution statements to 3 or fewer; more signals overselling to reviewers

Results

• Lead every results paragraph with the coefficient value, not "Table X shows..."
• Economic significance is mandatory: interpret magnitude relative to mean or SD
• Guide the reader column by column; explain why estimates move across specifications

Conclusions

• Synthesize, do not summarize -- add interpretive value, not repetition
• Be honest about limitations; reviewers will find them regardless
• End on the contribution, not a hedge

Landscape Table Template (Wide Regression Tables)

Use this template whenever a table has more than 5 columns or produces Overfull \hbox > 5pt at standard page width. The table occupies its own portrait-to-landscape page and is placed in a float page ([p]).

% ── Wide regression table on a dedicated landscape page ──────────────────────
\begin{landscape}
\begin{table}[p]
\caption{[Table Title — e.g., Robustness Checks]}
\label{tab:robustness}
\footnotesize                        % slightly smaller font to fit more columns
\begin{threeparttable}
\begin{tabular}{l *{6}{c}}           % 1 label col + 6 numeric cols (adjust as needed)
\toprule
 & (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) & (6) \\
 & Baseline & Alt. SE & Excl. Outliers & Log Y & Alt. Controls & Preferred \\
\midrule
[D var]   & [β₁]*** & [β₂]*** & [β₃]*** & [β₄]** & [β₅]*** & \textbf{[β₆]***} \\
          & ([SE₁])  & ([SE₂])  & ([SE₃])  & ([SE₄]) & ([SE₅])  & \textbf{([SE₆])} \\
\addlinespace
Controls  & No  & No  & Yes & Yes & Alt & Yes \\
FE        & No  & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\
$N$       & [N] & [N] & [N] & [N] & [N] & [N] \\
$R^2$     & [r] & [r] & [r] & [r] & [r] & [r] \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}[flushleft]
\footnotesize
\item \textit{Notes:} [Standard error clustering. Significance: *\,p$<$0.1, **\,p$<$0.05, ***\,p$<$0.01.]
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\end{landscape}
% ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Rules for landscape tables:

• Always use [p] float specifier (dedicated page, no surrounding text)
• Use \footnotesize (10pt) inside the table body; \normalsize resumes automatically after \end{landscape}
• \begin{landscape} requires pdflscape (already in the authoritative preamble)
• In the main text, reference the table normally: "Table~\ref{tab:robustness} presents..."
• DOCX export: landscape formatting is PDF-only; inform the user the DOCX version will show the table in portrait

Appendix Template

% sections/appendix.tex
% Called via \input{sections/appendix} inside \begin{appendices}...\end{appendices}
% Counter resets (A1, A2, ...) are handled in paper.tex

\section{Additional Robustness Checks}
\label{sec:appendix_robustness}

[Brief narrative sentence explaining what each appendix table shows and why
it belongs in the appendix rather than the main text.]

% Wide robustness table — also use landscape here if > 5 cols
\input{../tables/table_robustness_appendix}

\section{Pre-Treatment Balance}
\label{sec:appendix_balance}

Table~\ref{tab:balance} reports balance statistics for the treatment and control groups
prior to the policy change. [One sentence summarizing the balance result.]

\input{../tables/table_balance}

\section{Variable Definitions}
\label{sec:appendix_variables}

\input{../tables/table_variable_definitions}

\section{Supplementary Figures}
\label{sec:appendix_figures}

[Brief sentence describing each supplementary figure.]

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.85\textwidth]{figA1_supplementary}
  \caption{[Caption]}
  \label{fig:appendix_A1}
\end{figure}

Common Pitfalls

• Burying the main result in the middle of the paper
• Using "significant" without specifying statistical vs. economic
• Over-claiming causality when identification is weak (see Causal Language Calibration above)
• Literature review organized chronologically rather than by research strand
• Conclusion that recaps the paper section by section
• Inline \begin{tabular} in section .tex files -- tables go in tables/, referenced via \input
• \graphicspath pointing to wrong directory (must be ../figures/ relative to paper/)
• Compiling without bibtex (produces [?] for all citations)