Overall Assessment

⚠️ Needs changes

No estimator/math/inference code changed, so I did not find new numerical-method defects. The blockers are in the new documentation contract itself: the PR makes docs/references.rst and the .claude review commands authoritative, but both are still internally inconsistent in ways that weaken source-material traceability and produce false review failures.

Executive Summary

• No runtime methodology regressions found; this is a docs/workflow-only review.
• docs/references.rst is incomplete relative to the public estimator/workflow surfaces it is now supposed to back.
• .claude/commands/docs-check.md’s README extraction command is broken, and the new instructions still misplace Honest DiD under ## Estimators.
• docs/doc-deps.yaml was only partially retargeted: HonestDiD still points to the wrong README section, and the map never surfaces docs/references.rst.
• README still has relative links that work on GitHub but break on PyPI.

Methodology

• Severity: P1. Impact: docs/references.rst is now declared the bibliography source of truth (CONTRIBUTING.md:L35-L38), but it omits several sources still surfaced in the public catalog/workflow: Baker et al. 2025 (diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt:L602-L606), dCDH’s dynamic companion (docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L475-L476), ContinuousDiD (docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L679), EfficientDiD (docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L751), and Wooldridge ETWFE (docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L1304-L1306), even though README still advertises those methods (README.md:L106-L117). That leaves the new “source of truth” incomplete for source-material traceability. Concrete fix: add those full citations to docs/references.rst and align titles/years with the Registry.
• No other methodology findings; I did not find estimator/math/SE/default-behavior changes in this diff.

Code Quality

• Severity: P1. Impact: the redirected docs-review workflow is broken in .claude/commands/docs-check.md:L116-L129. The published command awk '/^## Estimators/,/^## /' README.md self-terminates on the opening H2, so it returns only the heading on this README. The same section also tells reviewers to look under ## Estimators for every row even though the file itself marks HonestDiD as a diagnostics exception (.claude/commands/docs-check.md:L55-L56), and the actual surfaces put it under diagnostics (README.md:L120-L126, diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L71-L77). Concrete fix: replace the range command with one that skips the opening heading and stops at the next H2, and explicitly special-case diagnostic-class features/names.

Performance

• No findings.

Maintainability

• Severity: P2. Impact: docs/doc-deps.yaml was only partially updated. HonestDiD still points to README.md "Estimators (one-line catalog entry)" (docs/doc-deps.yaml:L428-L440), and the map has no docs/references.rst dependencies even though /docs-impact and pre-merge warnings rely on it (.claude/commands/docs-impact.md:L8-L20, .claude/commands/pre-merge-check.md:L112-L134). Future source changes will not prompt bibliography updates and will point reviewers at the wrong README section. Concrete fix: retarget HonestDiD to the diagnostics section and add docs/references.rst as a dependent doc for the method-backed source modules.

Tech Debt

• No mitigating TODO.md entry covers the issues above, so they remain untracked/unmitigated.

Security

• No findings.

Documentation/Tests

• Severity: P2. Impact: the new landing page still contains relative links at README.md:L83 and README.md:L182-L184 (docs/methodology/REPORTING.md, CITATION.cff, CONTRIBUTORS.md). These work on GitHub but break on PyPI, which is one of the main target surfaces for this rewrite. Concrete fix: use absolute GitHub or RTD URLs for those links.
• Severity: P3. Impact: README.md:L54 says there are 18 tutorials, but the repo currently has 19 notebooks under docs/tutorials/. Concrete fix: update the count or avoid hard-coding it.

Path to Approval

1. Fill in docs/references.rst with the missing public-method/workflow citations and cross-check them against docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md.
2. Fix .claude/commands/docs-check.md so the README catalog extraction actually works and diagnostics-class items, especially Honest DiD, are checked in the correct section with the correct display name.

/ai-review

🔁 AI review rerun (requested by @igerber)

Head SHA: dc443d5537fa3155d357abb35f0637cdd56b5123

Overall Assessment

✅ Looks good

This re-review resolves the prior P1-level concerns. I did not find any unmitigated P0/P1 issues in the PR diff; the remaining items are P2 documentation-tooling consistency gaps.

Executive Summary

• Previous blockers appear addressed: docs/references.rst now includes the previously missing public-method citations, the README’s PyPI-facing links are now absolute, and /docs-check no longer uses the broken self-terminating awk range form (docs/references.rst:L22-L31, docs/references.rst:L145-L166, README.md:L83, README.md:L180-L184, .claude/commands/docs-check.md:L128-L147).
• No estimator code, inference code, defaults, weighting, or identification logic changed in this PR, so I found no new numerical-methodology defects.
• The Baker et al. workflow summary added to the README is aligned with the project’s documented adaptation of that paper, and the deviations are already recorded in docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md, so I am not treating that as a defect (README.md:L85-L98, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L3245-L3262).
• Two minor workflow-contract mismatches remain: one in /docs-check’s StaggeredTripleDifference API-doc target, and one in docs/doc-deps.yaml’s partial migration to the new doc-surface contract.

Methodology

• No unmitigated findings. This PR does not change estimator math, SEs, assumptions, or defaults. The only method-adjacent addition is the README practitioner workflow summary, and its diff-diff-specific adaptation from Baker et al. is explicitly documented in docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L3245-L3262.

Code Quality

• No findings.

Performance

• No findings.

Maintainability

• Severity: P2 [Newly identified]. Impact: docs/doc-deps.yaml is still only partially migrated to the new “llms.txt + references + landing-page README” contract. For example, diff_diff/staggered_triple_diff.py still maps only methodology/API docs (docs/doc-deps.yaml:L165-L172), and diff_diff/sun_abraham.py still omits diff_diff/guides/llms.txt (docs/doc-deps.yaml:L176-L198), even though the new contributor contract treats those surfaces as required (.claude/commands/docs-check.md:L35-L56, CONTRIBUTING.md:L21-L48). That means /docs-impact will still under-report required documentation follow-ups for some public estimators. Concrete fix: backfill the missing README.md, diff_diff/guides/llms.txt, docs/references.rst, and related public-surface mappings for every estimator listed in the new /docs-check table, starting with StaggeredTripleDifference and SunAbraham.

Tech Debt

• No separate findings. The maintainability gap above is not tracked in TODO.md, but it is P2 workflow debt, not a blocker under this rubric.

Security

• No findings.

Documentation/Tests

• Severity: P2. Impact: .claude/commands/docs-check.md now says StaggeredTripleDifference’s API documentation target is index.rst (.claude/commands/docs-check.md:L51-L53), but docs/api/index.rst does not list diff_diff.StaggeredTripleDifference in its estimator autosummary (docs/api/index.rst:L11-L30), and docs/api/staggered.rst only documents Callaway-Sant’Anna and Sun-Abraham (docs/api/staggered.rst:L15-L125). As written, /docs-check can produce a false pass for that estimator’s API-doc requirement. Concrete fix: either add a real StaggeredTripleDifference API entry to the docs and point /docs-check at that file, or remove that row from the required-doc table until the API docs exist.
• No runtime or methodology tests were expected for this docs-only PR. I did not run a Sphinx/docutils build in this environment.

/ai-review

🔁 AI review rerun (requested by @igerber)

Head SHA: 1e6eef7a7b37d92c7ac2b09f7c92ad03c9976682

Overall Assessment

✅ Looks good

I did not find any unmitigated P0/P1 issues in this re-review. The PR remains documentation-only, and the method-adjacent additions I checked are consistent with the Methodology Registry and existing guide files.

Executive Summary

• Previous re-review blockers appear resolved: StaggeredTripleDifference now has an API docs section in docs/api/staggered.rst:L127-L143, the bibliography has been split into docs/references.rst:L1-L184, and that page is now wired into RTD via docs/index.rst:L65-L74.
• No estimator code, inference code, weighting logic, defaults, or identification checks changed in this PR.
• The new Baker-et-al. workflow summary in README.md:L85-L98 matches the documented diff-diff adaptation in docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L3247-L3262, so I am not treating it as a methodology deviation.
• docs/doc-deps.yaml looks materially more aligned with the new doc-surface contract; the prior partial-migration concern is largely addressed in the changed ranges, including docs/doc-deps.yaml:L163-L186.
• One P2 documentation navigation gap remains: the new README catalog entry for StaggeredTripleDifference points to api/index.html, but that index still does not list the estimator.
• One minor P3 documentation consistency issue remains in the intro text of docs/api/staggered.rst.

Methodology

• No findings. The only method-adjacent content added here is documentation: the practitioner workflow in README.md:L85-L98 and its bibliography entry in docs/references.rst:L157-L159. Both align with the documented Baker adaptation notes in docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L3247-L3262.

Code Quality

• No findings.

Performance

• No findings.

Maintainability

• No findings.

Tech Debt

• No findings. The earlier doc-map drift concern appears substantially improved by the new docs/doc-deps.yaml entries, especially for the moved bibliography and StaggeredTripleDifference surfaces (docs/doc-deps.yaml:L163-L186).

Security

• No findings. diff-diff.png appears to be a standard PNG asset; a basic metadata/string pass surfaced provenance metadata only, with no obvious secret-like material or PII.

Documentation/Tests

• Severity: P2. Impact: The new README catalog entry for StaggeredTripleDifference links to api/index.html (README.md:L116), but the API index still does not list either diff_diff.StaggeredTripleDifference or diff_diff.StaggeredTripleDiffResults (docs/api/index.rst:L11-L30, docs/api/index.rst:L37-L65). The actual docs now live in docs/api/staggered.rst:L127-L143, and the refreshed docs contract also points there (.claude/commands/docs-check.md:L35-L56). As written, the landing-page catalog link does not take readers to the estimator docs they expect. Concrete fix: change the README link to api/staggered.html; ideally sync the same fix in diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L67, or alternatively add the estimator and results class to docs/api/index.rst.
• Severity: P3. Impact: docs/api/staggered.rst:L4-L11 still says the page provides “two main estimators” and lists only Callaway-Sant’Anna and Sun-Abraham, but the same page now also documents StaggeredTripleDifference (docs/api/staggered.rst:L127-L143). This is a minor accuracy drift in the page intro. Concrete fix: update the intro to describe three documented estimators, or narrow the sentence so it explicitly introduces only the first two sections.

I did not run a full Sphinx/docutils build in this environment.

/ai-review

🔁 AI review rerun (requested by @igerber)

Head SHA: a2b2df76e978ea4509c60119a251d0ce69ccd0fa

Overall Assessment
✅ Looks good

Executive Summary

• Previous re-review documentation issues are resolved: README.md:L116 and diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L67 now point StaggeredTripleDifference directly to api/staggered.html#staggeredtripledifference, and docs/api/staggered.rst:L6-L12 now describes all three estimators.
• No estimator code, weighting, variance/SE logic, defaults, or identification checks changed in this PR.
• The added Baker workflow surface is consistent with the documented adaptation notes in docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L3247-L3261, and the new bibliography entry in docs/references.rst:L157-L159 is appropriate.
• One P2 documentation inconsistency remains: the refreshed high-level workflow says HonestDiD applies to dCDH, but the detailed practitioner guide still says HonestDiD works only with MultiPeriodDiD and CallawaySantAnna.
• One P3 maintainability nit remains in docs/doc-deps.yaml: several touched diff_diff/guides/llms.txt mappings still lack section metadata.

Methodology

• Severity: P2. Impact: README.md:L94-L98 and diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L23-L25 now advertise compute_honest_did(results) for MultiPeriodDiD, CallawaySantAnna, or dCDH, which matches the documented dCDH extension in docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L637. But diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt:L296-L300 still says HonestDiD works only with MultiPeriodDiD and CallawaySantAnna, even though the same guide’s estimator tree says dCDH supports HonestDiD at diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt:L177-L180. That leaves the methodology guidance internally inconsistent for reversible-treatment workflows. Concrete fix: update Step 6 in diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt to include dCDH with the registry caveats (L_max >= 1, placebo-based pre-periods, diagonal-variance warning), or remove dCDH from the refreshed high-level workflow surfaces if that support should not be advertised there.

Code Quality

• No findings.

Performance

• No findings.

Maintainability

• Severity: P3. Impact: the refresh makes diff_diff/guides/llms.txt a first-class documentation surface, but several touched dependency-map entries still omit which llms section they belong to at docs/doc-deps.yaml:L104-L105, docs/doc-deps.yaml:L147-L148, and docs/doc-deps.yaml:L316-L317. That weakens the new map-validation contract because tooling can tell the file exists but not whether the mapping is to ## Estimators or another section. Concrete fix: add section: "Estimators" (or the appropriate section name) to the remaining unsectioned diff_diff/guides/llms.txt mappings touched by this PR.

Tech Debt

• No findings. I did not see new deferrable work here that needed a TODO.md entry.

Security

• No findings. diff-diff.png appears to be a normal PNG asset with provenance metadata only; I did not find secrets or PII in the changed text surfaces.

Documentation/Tests

• No findings. I confirmed README.md is 188 lines with 14 H2s, and docs/index.rst:L70-L73 now wires references into the docs tree.
• Verification note: I did not run a full Sphinx/docutils build in this environment because docutils is not installed.

/ai-review

🔁 AI review rerun (requested by @igerber)

Head SHA: 44f263240c64502db158f866e5032369dc28f1d5

Overall Assessment

✅ Looks good

Executive Summary

• Re-review: the prior Step 6 HonestDiD inconsistency is resolved. diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt:L292-L308 now matches the dCDH caveats documented in docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L637-L640.
• The prior StaggeredTripleDifference doc-link/API coverage issues are resolved in README.md:L100-L118, diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L58-L69, and docs/api/staggered.rst:L6-L145.
• The prior docs/doc-deps.yaml section-metadata gaps for touched diff_diff/guides/llms.txt mappings appear resolved; I did not find remaining touched entries without a section.
• One P2 documentation/source-material issue remains: docs/references.rst:L157-L159 misattributes the Baker practitioner-guide paper, even though this PR makes docs/references.rst the bibliography source of truth via .claude/commands/docs-check.md:L21-L29 and CONTRIBUTING.md:L35-L37.
• No estimator logic, weighting, variance/SE, defaults, or assumption checks changed in this PR.

Methodology

• Severity: P2. Impact: docs/references.rst:L157-L159 attributes arXiv 2503.13323 to Baker, Larcker, Wang, Wang, but the in-repo practitioner guide already cites Andrew Baker, Brantly Callaway, Scott Cunningham, Andrew Goodman-Bacon, Pedro H. C. Sant'Anna at diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt:L610-L614, which matches the paper metadata. Because this PR also redirects contributor workflows to treat docs/references.rst as the canonical bibliography, the refreshed docs flow would propagate an incorrect scholarly citation. Concrete fix: replace the author list in docs/references.rst:L157-L159 with the actual arXiv authors while keeping the title and arXiv ID unchanged. (ideas.repec.org)

Code Quality

• No findings.

Performance

• No findings.

Maintainability

• No findings.

Tech Debt

• No findings. I did not see a new deferrable item that needs TODO.md.

Security

• No findings. diff-diff.png is a normal PNG asset, and I did not see secrets or executable content in the changed files.

Documentation/Tests

• No additional findings.
• I did not run a full Sphinx/docutils build because docutils and sphinx are not installed in this environment.
• Manual verification only: README.md is 188 lines with 14 H2 headings, and docs/index.rst:L65-L74 adds references to the docs toctree.

/ai-review

🔁 AI review rerun (requested by @igerber)

Head SHA: 61841a1cfe40ae1deb7b88725b41e258e740d127

Overall Assessment

✅ Looks good. All prior re-review findings appear addressed. The highest remaining unmitigated issue is a P2 documentation-contract gap, which is compatible with ✅ under the stated criteria.

Executive Summary

• The prior bibliography issue is fixed: docs/references.rst:L157-L159 now attributes the Baker practitioner-guide paper correctly.
• The prior dCDH HonestDiD wording issue remains resolved: diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt:L296-L308 matches the caveat in docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L637-L641.
• The prior StaggeredTripleDifference discoverability/link issue is resolved in the touched surfaces: diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L67-L67 and docs/api/staggered.rst:L128-L145.
• Severity: P2 [Newly identified]. The new canonical docs surfaces still omit public HeterogeneousAdoptionDiD, so the refresh institutionalizes an incomplete estimator catalog (README.md:L100-L118, diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L51-L69, .claude/commands/docs-check.md:L35-L56 vs diff_diff/__init__.py:L64-L67 and diff_diff/__init__.py:L467-L470).
• No estimator logic, weighting, variance/SE, defaults, or assumption checks changed in this PR.

Methodology

• No findings. The touched methodology-adjacent text is consistent with the Methodology Registry, and I did not find a new undocumented deviation from source material.

Code Quality

• No findings.

Performance

• No findings.

Maintainability

• No findings.

Tech Debt

• No new findings. Existing deferred HAD docs work is already tracked at TODO.md:L108-L108.

Security

• No findings.

Documentation/Tests

• Severity: P2 [Newly identified]. Impact: this PR redefines README.md, diff_diff/guides/llms.txt, and .claude/commands/docs-check.md as the authoritative public-doc surfaces, but all three omit HeterogeneousAdoptionDiD even though it is a shipped public estimator (diff_diff/__init__.py:L64-L67, diff_diff/__init__.py:L467-L470) with a methodology section in docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2251-L2255; it is also absent from the API index autosummary at docs/api/index.rst:L11-L30 and docs/api/index.rst:L37-L65. That means users, AI agents, and future docs sweeps will continue to miss a real public estimator. Concrete fix: add HeterogeneousAdoptionDiD to the flat estimator catalogs in README.md and diff_diff/guides/llms.txt, add it to .claude/commands/docs-check.md’s required-estimators table, add the citation to docs/references.rst, add API-index coverage in docs/api/index.rst plus a real API page/autosummary target for the class/results, and add the corresponding docs/doc-deps.yaml mapping for diff_diff/had.py. TODO.md:L108-L108 only tracks future llms.txt/tutorial work; it does not justify baking the omission into the required-docs contract.
• Manual verification only. I did not run a full Sphinx/docutils build because docutils is unavailable in this environment.

/ai-review

🔁 AI review rerun (requested by @igerber)

Head SHA: 709e1af2b90577c36d964fe11922c597c1888f2f

Overall Assessment

⚠️ Needs changes

Executive Summary

• Prior re-review completeness gaps are mostly addressed: HAD now appears in the README catalog, bundled llms.txt, a dedicated API page, and docs/references.rst, and the StaggeredTripleDifference link now targets the correct anchor (README.md:L113-L117, diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L64-L68, docs/api/had.rst:L1-L58, docs/references.rst:L157-L171).
• No estimator code, weighting logic, variance code, defaults, or assumption checks changed in this PR.
• Severity P1: the new HAD API/docs copy materially misstates the estimator’s applicability and inference surface relative to docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md and diff_diff/had.py.
• Severity P3: docs/api/had.rst cites Calonico/Cattaneo/Titiunik (2014), but docs/references.rst does not include that citation.
• Severity P3: docs/api/index.rst adds HAD autosummary entries but still omits had.rst from the API module toctree, so the new page is not navigable from the RTD API landing page.

Methodology

• Severity: P1. Impact: HeterogeneousAdoptionDiD is now described in ways that disagree with the shipped contract. docs/api/had.rst says the method is for panels where every post-period dose is strictly positive and there is no untreated comparison group, advertises HC2/Bell-McCaffrey SEs, and says the Appendix B.2 event-study produces correlated SEs and sup-t bands. The registry/code say the opposite: Design 1' explicitly allows d.min() == 0, the event-study last-cohort path retains never-treated units, the mass-point path only exposes classical/hc1 while continuous paths use CCT robust SE, and event-study inference is pointwise per horizon with no joint cross-horizon covariance; sup-t is only available on weighted event-study fits. This is not a documented deviation in REGISTRY.md. References: docs/api/had.rst:L4-L30, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2504-L2508, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2514-L2518, diff_diff/had.py:L542-L562, diff_diff/had.py:L2568-L2576, diff_diff/had.py:L2817-L2837, README.md:L113-L113, diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L64-L64. Concrete fix: rewrite the HAD descriptions in docs/api/had.rst and the matching one-line catalog entries in README.md / diff_diff/guides/llms.txt to match the registry exactly: nonnegative-dose boundary handling, last-cohort-plus-never-treated event-study support, pointwise per-horizon CIs by default, and sup-t only for weighted event-study with cband=True.

Code Quality

• No findings.

Performance

• No findings.

Maintainability

• Severity: P3. Impact: the new docs/api/had.rst page is not added to the API landing page’s module-documentation toctree, so RTD navigation still has no path from api/index.html to the new narrative HAD page even though direct links exist elsewhere. References: docs/api/index.rst:L226-L246, docs/api/had.rst:L1-L58. Concrete fix: add had under Module Documentation -> Estimators in docs/api/index.rst.

Tech Debt

• No findings. The remaining HAD llms-full.txt / tutorial / practitioner_next_steps() follow-up is correctly tracked in TODO.md:L108-L108 and is non-blocking.

Security

• No findings.

Documentation/Tests

• Severity: P3. Impact: docs/api/had.rst newly cites Calonico/Cattaneo/Titiunik (2014), but the new bibliography source of truth does not contain that entry, so the docs-refresh contract is only partially applied. References: docs/api/had.rst:L17-L18, docs/references.rst:L1-L191, CONTRIBUTING.md:L26-L37. Concrete fix: add the exact citation to docs/references.rst, or remove that scholarly reference from docs/api/had.rst.
• Manual review only. I did not run a Sphinx/docutils build in this environment.

Path to Approval

1. Rewrite the HAD copy in docs/api/had.rst and the matching HAD catalog lines in README.md and diff_diff/guides/llms.txt so they match the shipped methodology contract in docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md: allow the Design 1' zero-boundary path, stop promising HC2/Bell-McCaffrey or correlated event-study SEs, and restrict sup-t language to weighted event-study fits with cband=True.

/ai-review

🔁 AI review rerun (requested by @igerber)

Head SHA: c720d5ae4d5e3589990c0bc93953862a25d1da79

Overall Assessment

✅ Looks good

Executive Summary

• Prior P1 HAD methodology-copy issue appears resolved: the new API page, README catalog entry, and bundled llms.txt now align with the registry on Design 1' vs Design 1, last-cohort event-study scope, pointwise CIs, and weighted-only sup-t language (docs/api/had.rst:L13-L23, docs/api/had.rst:L36-L52, README.md:L113-L113, diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L64-L64, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2261-L2263, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2513-L2516).
• Prior API-navigation gap is resolved: had is now in the API autosummaries/toctree, and StaggeredTripleDifference now has a dedicated staggered.rst section with corrected anchors from README and llms.txt (docs/api/index.rst:L18-L31, docs/api/index.rst:L232-L244, docs/api/staggered.rst:L128-L147, README.md:L117-L117, diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L68-L68).
• The new dCDH HonestDiD practitioner note matches the shipped extension and caveats (diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt:L296-L308, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L637-L637, diff_diff/honest_did.py:L840-L859).
• No estimator implementation, weighting logic, variance/SE code, defaults, or assumption checks changed in this PR; this is a docs/workflow PR.
• Remaining findings are P3 documentation issues only: one lingering HAD wording mismatch on the new bibliography page, and missing bibliography entries for newly named HAD support sources.

Methodology

• Severity: P3. Impact: the new HAD bibliography blurb still says the estimator targets settings with “strictly positive” doses, which is narrower than the documented Design 1' d̲ = 0 case and could confuse readers who land on references.html first. Concrete fix: rewrite the HAD blurb to match the API/registry wording, e.g. nonnegative dose support with Design 1' (d̲ = 0) and Design 1 (d̲ > 0). References: docs/references.rst:L171-L173, docs/api/had.rst:L15-L17, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2261-L2263.

Code Quality
No findings.

Performance
No findings.

Maintainability
No findings.

Tech Debt
No findings. The remaining HAD llms-full.txt / tutorial follow-up is already tracked and non-blocking (TODO.md:L108-L108).

Security
No findings.

Documentation/Tests

• Severity: P3. Impact: docs/api/had.rst newly names CCT-2014 and Binder (1983) as part of the HAD inference contract, but docs/references.rst does not include those sources, so the new bibliography page is not yet the complete scholarly source of truth this PR sets out to create. Concrete fix: add Calonico-Cattaneo-Titiunik (2014) and Binder (1983) to docs/references.rst (optionally also the Calonico-Cattaneo-Farrell 2018/2019 nprobust entries that the registry relies on), or remove those named references from docs/api/had.rst. References: docs/api/had.rst:L39-L46, diff_diff/had.py:L55-L63, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2334-L2342, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2501-L2503, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2915-L2918, docs/references.rst:L168-L173.
• Manual review only; I did not run a Sphinx/doc build in this environment.

/ai-review

🔁 AI review rerun (requested by @igerber)

Head SHA: 68341337b35c5ade6ec54578948a3cbd7e660647

Overall Assessment

✅ Looks good

Executive Summary

• No P0 or P1 findings. This remains a docs/workflow PR; no estimator implementation, weighting logic, variance/SE code, defaults, or assumption checks changed in the diff.
• Prior re-review documentation gaps appear resolved: docs/references.rst now includes the HAD support sources that were previously missing, including CCT-2014 and Binder (1983), at docs/references.rst:L54-L69.
• The dCDH HonestDiD practitioner note now matches the shipped contract and registry note: diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt:L296-L308, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L637-L637.
• HAD is now properly exposed in the API index and result-class autosummaries: docs/api/index.rst:L27-L31, docs/api/index.rst:L60-L61, docs/api/index.rst:L236-L243.
• One residual P3 documentation issue remains: the new HAD summary copy still compresses the d̲ > 0 paths into generic “targets WAS” language, while the shipped estimator contract distinguishes WAS from WAS_d_lower.

Methodology

• Severity: P3. Impact: the new top-level HAD summaries imply that both Design 1' and Design 1 target the same WAS estimand, but the actual class contract and registry distinguish WAS on continuous_at_zero from WAS_d_lower on continuous_near_d_lower / mass_point. That is a documentation ambiguity, not an implementation bug, but it can misstate the estimand to readers landing on the overview pages. Concrete fix: rephrase the HAD summary copy in docs/api/had.rst:L13-L17, README.md:L113-L113, and diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L64-L64 to say “WAS for Design 1' (d̲ = 0); WAS_d_lower / sign identification on d̲ > 0 paths,” or otherwise mirror the shipped contract in diff_diff/had.py:L220-L252, diff_diff/had.py:L579-L581, and docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2509-L2513.

Code Quality

• No findings.

Performance

• No findings.

Maintainability

• No findings.

Tech Debt

• Severity: P3-informational. Impact: HAD still lacks llms-full coverage and practitioner_next_steps() integration, but this PR explicitly tracks that deferment, so it is not a blocker. Concrete fix: none for approval; follow the tracked item in TODO.md:L108.

Security

• No findings.

Documentation/Tests

• No findings beyond the P3 methodology wording note above. The previous bibliography gap is fixed by docs/references.rst:L54-L69, and the new had API page is now reachable from the API index via docs/api/index.rst:L236-L243.
• Manual review only; I did not run a Sphinx build, README render, or link checker in this environment.

/ai-review

🔁 AI review rerun (requested by @igerber)

Head SHA: dd29001f62c83fa2cbbdfe15f36ea83b7bc3091f

Overall Assessment

✅ Looks good

Executive Summary

• No P0/P1 findings. This remains a docs/workflow PR; no estimator implementation, weighting logic, variance/SE code, defaults, or assumption checks changed in the diff.
• Previous re-review gaps look resolved: HAD is now exposed in the API index and result-class autosummaries (docs/api/index.rst:L27-L28, docs/api/index.rst:L60-L61, docs/api/index.rst:L235-L243).
• The HAD top-level summary copy now distinguishes Design 1' WAS from Design 1 WAS_{d̲} on the public surfaces changed here (README.md:L113-L113, diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L64-L64, docs/api/had.rst:L13-L20).
• The bibliography split preserved the key HAD support citations, including CCT-2014 and Binder (1983) (docs/references.rst:L54-L69, docs/references.rst:L191-L193).
• dCDH HonestDiD practitioner guidance now matches the shipped contract and registry note (diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt:L296-L308, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L637-L637).
• Residual issues are P3 documentation/maintainability only.

Methodology

• Severity: P3. Impact: the new landing-page / concise-guide HAD catalog entries still describe the estimator as applicable to designs where no unit remains untreated, but they omit the shipped panel-only restriction. That can misroute repeated-cross-section users even though the full contract says the implementation requires a balanced panel and rejects RCS inputs. Concrete fix: append “panel-only” or “repeated cross-sections not yet supported” to README.md:L113-L113 and diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L64-L64, mirroring docs/api/had.rst:L34-L39, diff_diff/had.py:L2800-L2810, and docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2511-L2512.
• Severity: P3. Impact: the new HAD API page summarizes weighted/survey inference too broadly for the mass-point path. It says survey= composes Binder TSL on both paths and only calls out hc2/hc2_bm as unsupported, but the shipped contract also rejects vcov_type="classical" on mass-point survey= paths and on weights= event-study with cband=True. Concrete fix: add one sentence to docs/api/had.rst:L49-L58 mirroring the deviation already documented at docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2377-L2379 and enforced at diff_diff/had.py:L3364-L3375 and diff_diff/had.py:L4095-L4109.

Code Quality

No findings.

Performance

No findings.

Maintainability

• Severity: P3. Impact: project trackers now disagree on HAD Phase 5 documentation status. TODO.md:L108-L108 says the llms.txt/README/API/references work landed in this PR, while the Methodology Registry checklist still says llms.txt remains undone (docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2531-L2531). That invites review churn and conflicting guidance for future docs work. Concrete fix: update the REGISTRY checklist item to reflect the split now recorded in TODO.md.

Tech Debt

• Severity: P3-informational. Impact: HAD still lacks llms-full.txt coverage, tutorial integration, and practitioner_next_steps() wiring, but this PR explicitly tracks that deferment in TODO.md:L108-L108, so it is non-blocking. Concrete fix: none for approval; follow the tracked item.

Security

No findings.

Documentation/Tests

No blocking findings. Manual review only; I did not run a Sphinx build, README render, or link checker in this environment.

/ai-review

🔁 AI review rerun (requested by @igerber)

Head SHA: a21cd5d045772eb5deb601fd426f9c6dd401201f

Overall Assessment

✅ Looks good

No unmitigated P0/P1 findings. This remains a docs/workflow/asset PR; the methodology-facing changes are mostly aligned with the shipped HAD and dCDH contracts.

Executive Summary

• Previous re-review gaps appear resolved: HAD now states the panel-only restriction on the public catalog surfaces, the new HAD API page documents the mass-point vcov_type="classical" limitation, and the Phase 5 tracker entries are aligned across TODO.md and REGISTRY.md (README.md:L113-L113, diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L64-L64, docs/api/had.rst:L61-L71, TODO.md:L108-L108, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2531-L2532).
• The dCDH HonestDiD update in the practitioner guide matches the shipped contract: dCDH requires L_max >= 1, uses placebo coefficients as pre-periods, uses diagonal variance, and emits a runtime warning (diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt:L296-L308, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L637-L637, diff_diff/honest_did.py:L843-L968).
• No estimator implementation, weighting logic, variance code, defaults, or assumption checks changed in this PR.
• Severity: P3 [Newly identified]. A stale HAD note remains in the Methodology Registry claiming weights= / survey= raise NotImplementedError, which now contradicts both the new API page and the implementation (docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2511-L2512 vs docs/api/had.rst:L43-L71, diff_diff/had.py:L3364-L3375, diff_diff/had.py:L4095-L4109).
• Severity: P3. The new dCDH HonestDiD caveat in the bundled practitioner guide points offline get_llm_guide("practitioner") users to docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md, but that file is not bundled in the wheel (diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt:L303-L308, README.md:L61-L72, pyproject.toml:L96-L98).

Methodology

• Severity: P3 [Newly identified]. Impact: docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md still has a stale Phase 2a/2b note saying HAD weights= and survey= raise NotImplementedError, which conflicts with the newly added HAD API reference and current weighted/survey implementation. That creates contradictory methodology guidance in the project’s own source of truth. Concrete fix: update or explicitly mark the historical note at docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2511-L2512 as superseded by the current Phase 4.5 contract already documented at docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2340-L2379 and surfaced in docs/api/had.rst:L43-L71.

Code Quality

• No findings.

Performance

• No findings.

Maintainability

• No findings.

Tech Debt

• Severity: P3-informational. Impact: Remaining HAD follow-up work (practitioner_next_steps(), tutorial, llms-full.txt) is explicitly tracked, so it is non-blocking under the project’s deferred-work policy (TODO.md:L108-L110, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2530-L2534). Concrete fix: none for approval; keep the tracker entries synchronized as the remaining Phase 5 work lands.

Security

• No findings.

Documentation/Tests

• Severity: P3. Impact: the new dCDH HonestDiD caveat in diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt sends readers to docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md, but wheel packaging only includes diff_diff/guides/*.txt. That makes the reference dead for the exact offline get_llm_guide("practitioner") workflow the README advertises as no-network (diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt:L303-L308, README.md:L61-L72, pyproject.toml:L96-L98). Concrete fix: inline the caveats directly in llms-practitioner.txt, or replace the repo-path pointer with a public RTD URL and note that it requires network access.
• Validation note: I did not run a Sphinx build or import smoke test in this environment; import diff_diff fails here because runtime dependencies are not installed (numpy missing).

/ai-review

🔁 AI review rerun (requested by @igerber)

Head SHA: 41107c85187490fc5af6e89966d4788170ffd04c

Overall Assessment

✅ Looks good

Executive Summary

• Previous re-review issues appear resolved: the HAD registry note now marks the old survey= / weights= limitation as superseded, and the bundled practitioner guide now inlines the dCDH HonestDiD caveats in a way that matches the implementation (docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2507-L2512, diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt:L296-L314, diff_diff/honest_did.py:L840-L980).
• No estimator implementation, weighting logic, variance code, defaults, or assumption checks changed in this diff.
• Severity P2. The new README survey section overstates a uniform survey API/weight-type contract. README.md:L129-L137 says all estimators accept survey_design with pweight/fweight/aweight, but HeterogeneousAdoptionDiD.fit() uses survey= / weights= (diff_diff/had.py:L2777-L2788) and rejects non-pweight survey designs on the continuous path (diff_diff/had.py:L2984-L2994); other survey-aware estimators such as Callaway-Sant'Anna and StackedDiD are also pweight-only (diff_diff/staggered.py:L1497-L1504, diff_diff/stacked_did.py:L249-L260).
• Severity P3-informational. Remaining HAD Phase 5 guide gaps are explicitly tracked, so they are non-blocking (docs/doc-deps.yaml:L366-L384, TODO.md:L108-L110).

Methodology

• No findings. The changed HAD docs now align with the registry and implementation on the panel-only restriction, Design 1 / Design 1' targets, and the documented mass-point vcov_type="classical" deviation (docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2340-L2379, docs/api/had.rst:L43-L71, diff_diff/had.py:L3317-L3376, diff_diff/had.py:L4074-L4110).
• No findings. The new dCDH HonestDiD practitioner text matches code: L_max >= 1, placebo horizons as pre-period coefficients, diagonal variance, and consecutive-block filtering with warnings (diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt:L296-L314, diff_diff/honest_did.py:L840-L980).

Code Quality

• No findings.

Performance

• No findings.

Maintainability

• No findings.

Tech Debt

• Severity P3-informational. Impact: the PR correctly leaves the remaining HAD offline-guide/practitioner integration work tracked rather than silently presenting it as complete. Concrete fix: none for approval; keep the planned Phase 5 follow-up scoped to diff_diff/guides/llms-full.txt, tutorials, and practitioner_next_steps() as already recorded in docs/doc-deps.yaml:L366-L384 and TODO.md:L108-L110.

Security

• No findings.

Documentation/Tests

• Severity P2. Impact: the new README survey section advertises a public contract the codebase does not uniformly expose. A reader following README.md:L129-L137 can reasonably try survey_design=SurveyDesign(..., weight_type="aweight") on any estimator, but the newly added HAD API docs and implementation use survey= / weights= instead of survey_design= (docs/api/had.rst:L43-L71, diff_diff/had.py:L2777-L2788), and multiple estimators reject non-pweight designs (diff_diff/had.py:L2984-L2994, diff_diff/staggered.py:L1497-L1504, diff_diff/stacked_did.py:L249-L260). Concrete fix: rewrite the landing-page copy to say survey support varies by estimator, call out the HAD survey= / weights= exception explicitly, and defer supported weight types to the compatibility matrix.
• Validation note: I did not run a Sphinx build or README renderer here; I only did targeted source cross-checks and a local parse of docs/doc-deps.yaml.

/ai-review

🔁 AI review rerun (requested by @igerber)

Head SHA: 06384266166c82d013f44b68396e26c456947996

Overall Assessment

✅ Looks good

Executive Summary

• The prior README survey-contract issue appears fixed at the landing-page level: README.md:L129-L133 now says “most estimators,” explicitly calls out HAD’s survey= / weights= exception, and defers weight-type details to the compatibility matrix.
• No estimator implementation, weighting logic, variance code, defaults, or assumption checks changed in this diff.
• The new HAD API page and bibliography entry align with the registry/code on panel-only scope, WAS vs WAS_d_lower, pointwise event-study CIs, and the documented weighted mass-point inference restrictions.
• The dCDH HonestDiD practitioner-guide update matches the implementation on L_max >= 1, placebo-based pre-period coefficients, diagonal variance, equal-weight default targeting, and consecutive-block filtering.
• Remaining P2: the PR elevates diff_diff/guides/llms.txt to “source of truth” status, but that file still overstates a uniform survey_design API / weight-type contract and the linked survey matrix still omits HAD.
• Remaining HAD Phase 5 docs gaps are explicitly tracked in TODO.md, so they are non-blocking.

Methodology

No findings. The new HAD docs match the existing registry/code contract on panel-only support, WAS vs WAS_d_lower, pointwise event-study CIs, and the weighted mass-point vcov_type="classical" restriction (docs/api/had.rst:L13-L71, docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2340-L2379, diff_diff/had.py:L2777-L2879). The dCDH HonestDiD practitioner text also matches the implementation on L_max >= 1, placebo-based pre-period coefficients, diagonal variance, equal-weight default l_vec=None, and consecutive-block filtering (diff_diff/guides/llms-practitioner.txt:L296-L314, diff_diff/honest_did.py:L840-L968).

Code Quality

No findings.

Performance

No findings.

Maintainability

No findings.

Tech Debt

• P3 Impact: Remaining HAD documentation work is explicitly deferred rather than silently omitted: the outstanding llms-full.txt / tutorial / practitioner_next_steps() work is tracked in TODO.md:L108-L110 and docs/methodology/REGISTRY.md:L2530-L2532. Concrete fix: none for approval; keep the planned Phase 5 follow-up scoped to those surfaces.

Security

No findings.

Documentation/Tests

• P2 Impact: The PR now declares diff_diff/guides/llms.txt the AI-agent “source of truth” / canonical machine-readable contract (CONTRIBUTING.md:L21-L25, CLAUDE.md:L121-L130, .claude/commands/docs-check.md:L21-L29), but that guide still says “All estimators accept an optional survey_design parameter” and advertises generic pweight/fweight/aweight support (diff_diff/guides/llms.txt:L100-L108). That is false for HeterogeneousAdoptionDiD, whose public fit API is survey= / weights= rather than survey_design= (diff_diff/had.py:L2777-L2788), and the compatibility matrix the new README points readers to still omits HAD entirely (README.md:L129-L133, docs/choosing_estimator.rst:L694-L706, docs/choosing_estimator.rst:L715-L805). Concrete fix: update diff_diff/guides/llms.txt to mirror the README wording (“most estimators,” explicit HAD exception, per-estimator weight-type caveat) and either add HAD to the survey-support matrix or stop referring to that matrix as the complete per-estimator table until it covers HAD.

Validation note: I did not run a Sphinx build or README renderer; this review is based on targeted source cross-checks of the diff and surrounding implementation.