### TABLE 1 Taxonomy of Potential Responses

### Table 2. Ahypothetical example: proportion of potential response types in

2007

"... In PAGE 10: ... To see this, we consider a hypotheti- cal example when both monotonic and no-interaction assumptions hold true, and there is a binary observed covariate S. Table2 shows the true propor- tion of 12 potential response types in each stratum, and Table 3 shows the observed conditional probabilities pr#28y;;;; zjx;;;; s#29 induced from Table 2. Here, pr#28s 1 #29 is set to be 0.... In PAGE 10: ... To see this, we consider a hypotheti- cal example when both monotonic and no-interaction assumptions hold true, and there is a binary observed covariate S. Table 2 shows the true propor- tion of 12 potential response types in each stratum, and Table 3 shows the observed conditional probabilities pr#28y;;;; zjx;;;; s#29 induced from Table2 . Here, pr#28s 1 #29 is set to be 0.... In PAGE 10: ...45. #5B Table2 about here.#5D #5BTable 3 about here.... In PAGE 10: ...2812#29, which is 0.155. Here, we can calculate the true strati#0Ced ACDE from Table 2, which is 0:220 in stratum s 1 and 0:120 in stratum s 0 . In addition, the true ACDE is 0:165 from Table2 , which is included in both Kaufman et al apos;s bounds and our bounds. However, it is seen that Kaufman et al apos;s mid- point estimator is quite away from the true ACDE and outside our bounds, while the strati#0Ced midpoint estimator is close to the true ACDE.... ..."

### Table 5.2 Major potential response measures identified in the studies

### TABLE 2 A Summary of the Set of 113 Responses and the Potential Effects Therein

2005

### Table 6.9: Responses to the question on potential trade-off between security and patient care Respondent Answer If yes, why

2001

### Table 1. Percentage of participants at each frequency (regularly, occasionally, never) for each category of potential viewers and users. Most common response is highlighted.

### Table 7: Probability of dying in the low-tax regimes as a function of potential tax saving: allowing for differential response for tax increases and decreases and different seasonal patterns.

2001

"... In PAGE 17: ...robability of estimating at least that many positive coefficients would be 3.3%. For the relative specification, there are three negative coefficients, but two of them (1932 and 1935) are extremely close to zero. In Table7 , we re-estimated the pooled specification of Table 5 while allowing for differential response for tax decreases and tax increases. The results for the relative specification remain significant at a 5% level and the results for the logarithmic the reforms occurring at roughly the same time of the year can differ significantly.... In PAGE 17: ... The results for the relative specification remain significant at a 5% level and the results for the logarithmic the reforms occurring at roughly the same time of the year can differ significantly. In interpreting the constants of Table7 , one should also note that they reflect the probability of dying in the low-tax regime, which may be before or after the reform depending on whether the tax change was an increase or a decrease. 19 For most reforms and specifications, our restrictions cannot be rejected using the coefficient and standard error estimates from Table 6.... ..."

### Table 3- Tracked UCAV Responses

"... In PAGE 10: ... By quantifying the changes in the responses, the designer can identify the potential benefits and risks associated with a technology scenario. Table3 lists the responses chosen. In the area of sizing, key weights were identified.... ..."