Table 2.

RQ1 asymmetry tests: pooled and wave-matched comparisons.

Comparison	Difference	SE	z	p
γ_avg − δ_avg (pooled estimates)	0.226	0.100	2.26	0.024
γ3 − δ3 (third-wave estimates only)	0.297	0.113	2.63	0.008

The pooled comparison uses γ_avg and δ_avg as reported in Table 5 (each from the model that leaves the other parameter freely estimated per Table 1); because γ_avg summarizes a heterogeneous, non-stationary set of paths, this comparison should be read as a defensibly pooled null δ set against a γ figure dominated by one wave, not two equally well-behaved single effects. The wave-matched comparison instead contrasts the two third-interval paths directly (γ3, which was individually significant, and δ3, which was not; Table 5), avoiding the pooling issue entirely at the cost of using a single interval’s estimate on each side; both comparisons point in the same direction. Both z-based comparisons treat the two paths being compared as independent. An equality-constraint likelihood-ratio test within the fitted RI-CLPM, which incorporates the full parameter covariance matrix, confirmed the wave-matched asymmetry, Δχ²(1) = 9.16, p = 0.002.