Use when the assumptions, regularity conditions, and asymptotic results are the bottleneck for an Econometric Theory (ET) theorem-proof paper — adapt "identification" to mean stating defensible assumptions, proving the limit theory, and establishing generality, not causal design.
Scanned 6/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill ectheory-identification-strategy --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Ectheory Identification Strategy?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-ectheory-identification-strategy)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: ectheory-identification-strategy
description: Use when the assumptions, regularity conditions, and asymptotic results are the bottleneck for an Econometric Theory (ET) theorem-proof paper — adapt "identification" to mean stating defensible assumptions, proving the limit theory, and establishing generality, not causal design.
---
# Assumptions, Results & Proof Plan (ectheory-identification-strategy)
## When to trigger
- The estimator/test is stated but the **regularity conditions** under which it works are not pinned down
- A proof has a gap, or an assumption is doing suspicious load-bearing work
- You need to decide what limit theory applies (stationary vs nonstationary, fixed vs growing dimension)
- You are unsure your result clears ET's rigor bar before drafting theorems
## The ET rigor bar (theory journal — adapt "identification" accordingly)
At ET the analogue of an "identification strategy" is a **complete, defensible assumption set plus a
correct, general proof**. The most common ET referee objection is an unstated or implausibly strong
regularity condition. Treat the assumption-result-proof triple as the spine:
1. **Assumptions.** State each one explicitly and minimally. For every assumption ask: is it
necessary, can it be weakened, and is it satisfied by a leading example DGP? Distinguish
primitive conditions from high-level ones; if you use high-level conditions, show they hold in a
concrete case.
2. **Results.** State theorems precisely — the object, the mode of convergence (in probability, in
distribution, almost surely, uniformly), the rate, and the limiting law (normal, mixed-normal,
functional of Brownian motion, non-standard).
3. **Proof exposition.** Give a readable proof: a roadmap up front, key lemmas isolated, and the
probabilistic machinery named (LLN/CLT, triangular-array CLT, FCLT/weak convergence,
empirical-process bounds, mixing / near-epoch dependence, concentration inequalities).
4. **Generality.** Show the result is not an artifact of a special case — handle dependent data,
non-standard limits, or growing dimension where relevant.
## Branch paths by environment
- **Stationary, fixed dimension** — standard LLN/CLT; verify moment and dependence conditions; give
the asymptotic variance explicitly and a consistent estimator of it.
- **Nonstationary / unit-root / cointegration** — FCLT and continuous-mapping arguments; limits as
functionals of Brownian motion; care with normalizing rates (e.g., super-consistency).
- **High-dimensional / many regressors** — dimension growing with n; concentration inequalities,
sparsity or regularization conditions; uniformity over the parameter space.
- **Non-standard inference / partial identification** — characterize the (possibly non-normal) limit,
size control under the least-favorable configuration, and robustness of the inference.
- **Semiparametric / nonparametric** — empirical-process / stochastic-equicontinuity arguments;
bandwidth/tuning conditions; bias-variance trade-off made explicit.
## Checklist
- [ ] Every assumption stated explicitly, minimally, and motivated by a leading example
- [ ] High-level conditions verified in at least one primitive case
- [ ] Mode of convergence, rate, and limiting law stated precisely in each theorem
- [ ] Proof has a roadmap; lemmas isolated; probabilistic tools named
- [ ] Asymptotic variance / limiting functional given, with a consistent estimator where relevant
- [ ] Generality shown (dependence, nonstationarity, or dimension handled, as applicable)
- [ ] No claim exceeds what the assumptions support
## Anti-patterns
- An assumption that secretly assumes the conclusion (e.g., directly assuming asymptotic normality)
- High-level conditions that are never shown to hold in any concrete DGP
- A proof sketch that hides the hard step (uniformity, the non-standard limit, the edge case)
- Plain CLT machinery applied to nonstationary or high-dimensional data without justification
- Stating a rate or limit law without the supporting convergence argument
## Output format
```
【Environment】stationary / nonstationary / high-dimensional / non-standard / semiparametric
【Assumptions】listed + each justified by a leading example? [Y/N]
【Result】object, mode of convergence, rate, limiting law
【Proof plan】roadmap + key lemmas + named tools
【Generality】what is handled beyond the base case
【Gaps】[...]
【Next step】ectheory-contribution-framing
```
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!