# Quality Evaluation

**Timestamp**: 2026-03-09T15:50:30
**Reference**: /Users/davidvandijcke/University of Michigan Dropbox/David Van Dijcke/coarse/data/refine_examples/targeting_interventions/reference_review_stanford.md
**Model**: gemini/gemini-3.1-pro-preview
**Mode**: single

## Overall Score: 5.75/6.0

## Dimensions

| Dimension | Score | Reasoning |
|-----------|-------|-----------|
| coverage | 6.0/6 | The generated review provides exhaustive coverage of the paper, addressing the core assumptions (Property A, Assumption 1), the main theorems, and diving deeply into the various extensions in the Online Appendix (incomplete information, SVD, general costs). It identifies critical issues that the reference review missed entirely. |
| specificity | 6.0/6 | The review is incredibly specific, pulling 20 exact quotes from the text and appendices. Every single comment points to a precise location in the paper and provides a concrete, actionable fix, ranging from typographical corrections to mathematical re-derivations. |
| depth | 6.0/6 | The depth of analysis is exceptional. The reviewer re-derives first-order conditions, checks the logic of proofs (e.g., finding flaws in the contradiction argument for Proposition OA3 and the uniform convergence claim in Lemma OA3), and identifies subtle dimensional and algebraic errors that the reference review overlooked. |
| format | 5.0/6 | The generated review perfectly adheres to the requested format, including a header, an Overall Feedback section with titled issues, and a Detailed Comments section with numbered entries containing Quote and Feedback. |

## Strengths

- Exceptional technical rigor, identifying numerous mathematical and logical errors in the proofs and derivations that the reference review missed.
- Comprehensive evaluation of the Online Appendix, ensuring that the paper's extensions are held to the same standard as the main text.
- Highly specific and actionable feedback, with accurate quotes and clear corrections for every issue raised.

## Weaknesses

- The sheer volume of detailed mathematical corrections might overwhelm the authors, though they are all valid and necessary.
- Could have briefly summarized the paper's main contributions and strengths before diving into the critique to provide a more balanced tone.
