Use when the assumptions, regularity conditions, identification result, and asymptotic theory of a Journal of Econometrics (JoE) methodological paper are the bottleneck. Stress-tests the formal core — what is assumed, what is proved, and how general it is — before tables are drafted.
Scanned 6/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill joe-identification-strategy --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Joe Identification Strategy?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-joe-identification-strategy)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: joe-identification-strategy
description: Use when the assumptions, regularity conditions, identification result, and asymptotic theory of a Journal of Econometrics (JoE) methodological paper are the bottleneck. Stress-tests the formal core — what is assumed, what is proved, and how general it is — before tables are drafted.
---
# Identification & Asymptotic Strategy (joe-identification-strategy)
## When to trigger
- The estimand is not formally identified, or identification is asserted not proved
- Regularity conditions are stated loosely or are non-primitive (they smuggle in the conclusion)
- The limiting distribution / convergence rate is claimed without a derivation path
- You are unsure the result is general enough, or whether the conditions are verifiable
## The JoE formal bar
At the *Journal of Econometrics*, "identification strategy" means the **formal core**: the assumptions under which the estimand is identified, the estimator is consistent, and inference is valid. The house norm is **mathematical rigor** — proofs and asymptotic derivations are expected, and referees probe whether conditions are *primitive and verifiable*, whether the asymptotics are honest, and whether the result generalizes beyond a convenient special case. This is methodology, not applied causal design: the deliverable is theorems plus the Monte Carlo that shows the asymptotics bite in finite samples.
## The formal-core checklist
### 1. Identification
- State the **estimand** and the model precisely. Prove **identification** (the map from the distribution of observables to the parameter is unique) before estimation. Distinguish point vs. partial identification.
- If identification is weak or fails on a boundary (weak instruments, near-unit-root, near-singular Jacobian), say so and provide identification-robust inference rather than hiding it.
### 2. Assumptions / regularity conditions
- List each assumption and label it (moment existence, smoothness, mixing/dependence, bandwidth/rate conditions, rank/full-rank, parameter-space compactness).
- For each: is it **primitive** (on the DGP/data) or **high-level** (on objects derived from the estimator)? Prefer primitive; justify any high-level condition and verify it for a leading example.
- Check none of them silently assume the conclusion (e.g., assuming the very uniform convergence you need).
### 3. Asymptotic theory
- Lay out the proof path: consistency (ULLN / argmax) → rate → asymptotic distribution (CLT / Delta method / empirical-process tools) → variance estimator.
- State the **convergence rate** and the **limiting distribution**; derive or cite the **standard-error / variance estimator** and prove it is consistent.
- Handle nuisance parameters, tuning (bandwidth, lag length, penalty), and any first-stage estimation (Neyman-orthogonality / influence-function corrections) explicitly.
### 4. Generality
- State the **class** of models/DGPs the result covers; flag what is excluded and why.
- Show the result **nests** or extends known cases (a sanity check and a positioning device).
### 5. Proof exposition
- Map theorems → lemmas; keep the main text's intuition, push routine algebra to an appendix.
- Make each step auditable; a referee should reconstruct the argument without guessing.
## Numerical / Monte Carlo confirmation (light here, full in joe-data-analysis)
- Cross-check a derived asymptotic variance against a high-replication Monte Carlo; a mismatch usually signals an algebra error. The full size/power design lives in `joe-data-analysis`.
## Anti-patterns
- "Under standard regularity conditions" with no list and no verification
- High-level assumptions chosen so the theorem is one line — but unverifiable in any real model
- Asserting asymptotic normality with no derivation or no consistent variance estimator
- Ignoring weak/partial identification when the design is on its boundary
## Output format
```
【Estimand & model】...
【Identification】point/partial; proof sketch
【Assumptions】[A1 primitive, A2 high-level (justified), ...]
【Asymptotics】rate + limiting distribution + variance estimator
【Generality】class covered; what is excluded; nested cases
【Proof plan】theorems → lemmas → appendix
【Next step】joe-data-analysis
```
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!