ectheory-literature-positioning — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited ectheory-literature-positioning (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
ET is a theory journal: positioning is theorem-to-theorem, not "gap in the empirical literature." The reader is an econometric theorist who will immediately map your result onto the known limit theory. Your job is to locate your contribution on that lattice precisely:
nonstationary vs stationary, fixed vs growing dimension, sharp vs conservative inference, etc.
referees usually know it.
Because reviewers see your identity (single-anonymous review), self-citation is fine, but frame the new contribution on its merits, not as "our prior work."
"(Phillips, 1987)" / "Phillips (1987) shows" — not numeric or footnote styles.
mixing/NED) rather than gesturing at a textbook.
ET positioning is theorem-to-theorem on a known lattice of asymptotic results, not a survey of an empirical gap. Each row is a dimension along which a new result can dominate prior limit theory.
| Lattice dimension | Prior result's position | Your delta (one-sentence claim) |
|---|---|---|
| Dependence | i.i.d. innovations | mixing / NED / martingale-difference array |
| Stationarity | stationary, fixed root | nonstationary / local-to-unity / cointegrated |
| Dimension | fixed p | p growing with n, uniform over the model |
If your delta does not move the result along a dimension, a referee will ask "isn't this a special case of X?" — routing you back to ectheory-topic-selection. The fixes: "isn't this a special case?" → state the closest prior result with its assumptions, then the labelled dimension you relax, showing it as your corollary; "concurrent work proves this" → acknowledge by author-date and name the differentiating dimension. In the ET tradition positioning is "what limiting law, under what weakened conditions, was previously unproven"; confirm the live APA-style requirement against the author guidelines if uncertain.
Treat this skill as an executable review pass, not a prose hint. First lock the primitive assumptions, theorem statement, proof route, and example showing why the result matters; then judge whether the current manuscript answers the venue's real reader: econometric theorists who read for assumptions, theorem novelty, proof architecture, and relation to known asymptotics.
claim / evidence / risk / manuscript location rows, so the next agent can edit rather than rediscover the issue.resources/official-source-map.md has been checked for volatile rules and the manuscript has one concrete fix for the largest venue-specific risk.【Closest prior result】author (year) + its assumptions/scope
【Delta】what you weaken / generalize / prove (one sentence)
【Previously unproven】the element you now establish
【Concurrent work】acknowledged? [Y/N]
【Citations】APA author-date, list alphabetized? [Y/N]
【Next step】ectheory-identification-strategy~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.