The case study is now in artifacts/ under the declared names report.md, data.csv and metrics.json. Its content is unchanged except for the file names it refers to. There is one conflict with your instructions that I couldn't resolve: the required-outputs section of the task asks for report-v3.md, data-v3.csv and metrics-v3.json, which are suffixed names.

Source: I downloaded the last published version (report-v2.md, data-v2.csv and metrics.json) from the earlier job's GitHub publication at commit 4c125b6. Their SHA-256 hashes match the hashes in that job's manifest.json, so this is exactly what was accepted before.

What changed:

• data.csv: byte-for-byte the same as data-v2.csv (same hash, 7f63e71d…).
• report.md: 11 lines changed, all of them a swap of data-v2.csv for data.csv. Ten lines hold the links. The eleventh is the "Data dictionary" sentence that names the file (line 125). All other text, numbers and outside links are the same. The report now has no v2 anywhere, and its only relative links are 10 to data.csv and 4 to metrics.json, both of which are files in the set.
• metrics.json: one line changed, the "general" note that names the source file. It still parses as valid JSON, and all figures are the same.

The naming conflict: to satisfy both instructions I wrote two byte-identical copies of each file: report.md/report-v3.md, data.csv/data-v3.csv and metrics.json/metrics-v3.json. If only the -v3 files get published, the links inside the report to data.csv and metrics.json will be dead. To avoid that, the files without a suffix need to be published as well.

Not committed: git ignores artifacts/ in this workspace, so I didn't force-add anything. All six files are untracked for the daemon to upload, and there is no new commit.

Checks I made:

• Compared the old and new files with diff and cmp.
• Checked hashes with sha256sum.
• Confirmed metrics.json parses with jq.
• Listed every relative link in the report.

Not done:

• I didn't re-check any figure against the live API, since the task asked for the numbers to stay identical.
• The report has the same facts/inference/uncertainty/unanswered-questions structure as the earlier accepted version, but I didn't re-verify its research claims.
• I left README.md alone. It still says raw evidence is in artifacts/evidence/, which doesn't exist in the workspace. That's a mention, not a link, but it's out of date.