finman-robustness

• SKILL.mdcore · 8,504 bytes

# Robustness Strategy (finman-robustness)

## When to trigger

- The paper has a wall of robustness tables and you cannot say which threat each one answers
- A coauthor wants to add "a few more specifications to be safe" before submission
- A referee asked whether the result survives an *alternative explanation*, not just an alternative specification
- You are unsure which checks belong in the main text vs. the internet appendix

## The FM robustness philosophy (this is the distinctive part)

Most journals reward more robustness tables; **FM explicitly does not.** The editors state they put **less weight on trivial robustness tests** and more on **new ideas** and **whether the result is interesting and credible.** This inverts the usual instinct: at FM, a robustness section that mechanically re-runs the regression with five winsorization thresholds and three control sets signals *weak ideas hiding behind volume*. The skill here is **subtraction, then precision** — cut the busywork, then run the small number of checks that each defuse a *named alternative explanation* a smart referee would actually raise. One check that kills the leading confounder is worth more than ten that vary nothing important.

## Threat-targeted robustness, not specification spraying