Short observational pricing panels often contain many data points but very few actual price changes. This paper shows that this sparsity creates a hidden source of error that standard statistical methods miss. When estimating price effects, most of the uncertainty does not come from sample size within a panel, but from the specific history of price movements observed. Standard confidence intervals fail because they only measure variation within the panel, ignoring this broader design-level error. Using simulations, we find that this cross-design variation accounts for most of the estimation error, causing standard methods to significantly understate uncertainty. First, we show that cross-design error decreases predictably as the total volume of price variation increases. Second, adding more data from regions that share the same price trends does not fix the issue; true precision improves only when combining data across units with independent price trajectories. Third, applying a simple variance-component adjustment across independently priced units restores accurate statistical coverage. We confirm these findings in real-world store scanner data, showing that products and pricing zones behave as if they have far fewer independent price movements than their raw counts suggest. Ultimately, reliable inference in passive pricing data requires genuine, independent variation, which can be achieved through controlled regional price testing.

翻译：暂无翻译