comparison of methodologies
Table:
methodology 1: one year employment
methodology 2: two-year average employment
methodology 3: three-year average employment
methodology 4: three-year average employment and firm belongs to the size class at least two years out of three
methodology 5: final sample - methodology 4, and medium-sized firms that were previously large are excluded

number

medium-sized firms
65,659
64,885
63,894
61,630
59,397

outcome in post-transition period

remain medium-sized
57,259
53,869
50,876
50,341
48,787

become large
923
1,256
1,499
1,230
1,061

become small
7,251
8,456
9,220
7,638
7,544

go out of business
226
1,304
2,299
2,111
2,005

percent

remain medium-sized
87.2
83.0
79.6
82.1
82.1

become large
1.4
1.9
2.3
2.0
1.8

become small
11.0
13.0
14.4
12.5
12.7

go out of business
0.3
2.0
3.6
3.4
3.4

medium-sized status is observed at least twice in the three years preceding the transition year
88.8
93.4
96.0
100.0
100.0

outcome size class is observed at least twice in the three years following the transition year

become large
80.4
87.9
91.0
100.0
100.0

become small
77.8
90.4
93.3
100.0
100.0

Answer the given question as concisely as possible using information from the table. Your output should look like {"answer": ["YOUR ANSWER"]}. For several items, comma-separate them within the list. Here is the table caption: 'comparison of methodologies'. Refer to the table to answer the question below: What was the percentage of firms identified as having become large employed at least 500 workers in at least two out of the three years with the one-year method?

{"answer": ["80.4"]}