========================================================================
LABOR-SUPPLY RESPONSE -- swept (participation pp reduction)
========================================================================
scale = CS $672 / RCT $12,000 = 0.056

SCALING SWEEP (effect on ALL workers, average):
      sub-linear (scale^1.3):  0.10pp all-worker average
            linear (central):  0.23pp all-worker average
    super-linear (scale^0.7):  0.55pp all-worker average

CONCENTRATION RECONCILIATION:
  Low-wage workers = 20% of all workers (18.7M).
  The RCT sample WAS low-income, so -4.1pp x scale is the SEGMENT effect.
      sub-linear (scale^1.3): segment 0.10pp  ->  all-worker 0.02pp
            linear (central): segment 0.23pp  ->  all-worker 0.05pp
    super-linear (scale^0.7): segment 0.55pp  ->  all-worker 0.11pp

========================================================================
BANDED HEADLINE:
  Low-wage-SEGMENT participation effect: 0.10 to 0.55pp (central 0.23pp)
  All-worker AVERAGE: 0.02 to 0.11pp (central 0.05pp)

  Wilson's stated band was -0.5 to -1pp among low-wage workers. Our
  RCT-scaled segment estimate (0.23pp central) is BELOW that, because
  the CS dividend ($672) is far smaller than the transfers underlying his
  band. So the honest claim: even at the segment where it concentrates, the
  participation effect is well under half a point; economy-wide it rounds
  to ~0.05pp. The dividend is too small to meaningfully deter work.
