\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Direct amount-linked exposure coding in six official reward schedules}
\label{tab:directamountaudit}
\small
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
\begin{tabularx}{0.96\textwidth}{>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{0.31\textwidth}c>{\raggedright\arraybackslash}X}
\toprule
Coding layer & Cells & Meaning \\
\midrule
Direct amount-linked exposure term & 0/30 & An additional unit of the named exposure changes a rate, threshold, or cap. \\
Eligibility safeguard & 1/30 & A threshold can affect entry but not the disclosed conditional amount. \\
Explicit exposure-proxy condition & 0/30 & An explicit proxy is named in the observed clause. \\
Not disclosed in positive amount & 29/30 & No direct term is visible in the extracted positive reward formula. \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabularx}
\begin{tablenotes}
\footnotesize
\item Notes: The audit covers six complete official reward documents and five named exposure dimensions (population, sensitive facilities, measured noise, complaint burden, and distributional vulnerability), yielding 30 policy-dimension cells. One city complaint clause is coded as an ex-post eligibility safeguard. ``Not disclosed'' concerns the extracted positive reward amount and does not establish the absence of exposure-related regulation elsewhere. The replication package supplies the author semantic coding, clause rationale, source hash, and a separate deterministic exact-term audit; no inter-rater statistic is claimed.
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}