red-contribution-framing

Contribution Framing for RED (red-contribution-framing)

When to trigger

• Distilling "what is new" before drafting the abstract and introduction
• A paper with several results but no clear single advance
• Translating a technical contribution into something the SED audience immediately grasps

Framing a RED contribution

RED rewards a sharp, dynamic/quantitative contribution. Pick the dominant type and lead with it:

• New mechanism — a dynamic force (e.g., a feedback through expectations, distribution, or

accumulation) that changes the model's predictions; show what turns it on and what it does to key moments.

• New method — a solution, estimation, or computational technique that makes a class of dynamic

models tractable or more accurate; show the gain over the prior state of the art.

• New quantitative result — a calibrated/estimated model delivering a magnitude that matters for

theory or policy; lead with the number and the moment it matches.

• Model-disciplining evidence — empirical dynamics that pin down or refute a model element.

State the contribution as a delta against the closest existing model, not as a description of the

paper. Make the abstract (≤250 words, stand-alone) carry the headline result and magnitude; the

introduction should make the mechanism legible before the math.

Checklist

• [ ] One dominant contribution type is chosen and leads the abstract/intro
• [ ] The advance is stated as a quantitative/mechanistic delta with a magnitude where possible
• [ ] The contribution is framed for the SED/dynamic-economics readership
• [ ] No diffuse "we also do X, Y, Z" list crowding out the headline

Anti-patterns

• Framing the paper as a tour of results rather than one clear advance
• Hiding the magnitude or the mechanism behind notation
• Claiming generality the model or evidence does not support

Contribution stress test

Before declaring the framing done, write these four objects:

1. Closest dynamic model: the predecessor model, method, or calibration the paper changes.
2. Mechanism delta: the one force the old model missed and the new model turns on.
3. Quantitative delta: the moment, transition path, welfare number, or policy response that moves.
4. Scope delta: the class of economies, shocks, agents, or constraints where the result is meant to hold.

If the answer to item 2 is only "we use newer data," the paper is probably not framed as a RED

contribution yet. Route to red-literature-positioning or red-identification-strategy.

Worked vignette: framing a HANK liquidity paper

Suppose a draft solves a two-asset HANK model and finds fiscal transfers raise consumption more when

liquid wealth is concentrated near the borrowing constraint. Run the stress test (numbers illustrative):

1. Closest dynamic model: a one-asset Bewley–Huggett economy in which the transfer multiplier is small.
2. Mechanism delta: the liquid/illiquid portfolio friction puts ~30% of households in a high-MPC region.
3. Quantitative delta: the cumulative consumption response to a 1%-of-GDP transfer rises from 0.3 to

0.55 — substitute the paper's own numbers.

1. Scope delta: holds in economies whose liquid-wealth distribution matches SCF moments; knife-edge if

portfolio adjustment costs go to zero.

The abstract leads with item 3 and names item 2; items 1 and 4 belong in the introduction's second and

closing paragraphs.

Contribution statement block

Draft the framing as a fill-in block before touching the abstract:

【Closest model】[author-year + one-line description of the predecessor economy]
【Mechanism delta】[the dynamic force turned on: friction, shock process, heterogeneity margin]
【Quantitative delta】[moment / transition path / welfare number that moves, with magnitude and units]
【Discipline】[which calibrated or estimated targets pin the new force down]
【Scope】[class of economies where the claim holds; the knife-edge case]
【One-sentence pitch】[the sentence an SED discussant would put on slide 1]

If 【Quantitative delta】 is empty, the paper is a theory note — defensible at RED, but the framing must

then lead with the mechanism and its analytic characterization instead of a number.

Referee pushback on contribution claims

| Pushback heard at RED | Venue-specific fix |

|---|---|

| "The mechanism already exists in [closest paper]" | Show the moment or transition path the predecessor cannot generate, not just a modeling difference |

| "The magnitude is calibration-driven" | Re-run the delta under the predecessor's calibration; separate mechanism from parameter choice |

| "This is a comparative static, not dynamics" | Lead with the transition path or IRF; if a steady-state comparison is the point, argue why adjustment dynamics are second-order |

| "Headline number lacks discipline" | Tie it to explicit targeted moments and show untargeted fit beside it |

Supplementary resources

• [../../resources/official-source-map.md](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — abstract limit and scope sources