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

Give a precise answer to the following question using only the table information. Format your answer like this: {"answer": ["YOUR ANSWER"]}. If multiple items are correct, separate them with commas. Caption of the table: 'comparison of methodologies'. Answer the following table-based question: What were the numbers of medium-sized firms in the private sector according to the one-year methodology,according to the three-year average methodology and when the two-out-of-three-years condition is imposed respectively?

{"answer": ["65659.0", "63894.0", "61630.0"]}