You will be provided with a reference and some statements. Please determine whether each statement is 'supported', 'unsupported', or 'unknown' with respect to the reference. Please note:
First, assess whether the reference contains any valid content. If the reference contains no valid information, such as a 'page not found' message, then all statements should be considered 'unknown'.
If the reference is valid, for a given statement: if the facts or data it contains can be found entirely or partially within the reference, it is considered 'supported' (data accepts rounding); if all facts and data in the statement cannot be found in the reference, it is considered 'unsupported'.

You should return the result in a JSON list format, where each item in the list contains the statement's index and the judgment result, for example:
[
    {
        "idx": 1,
        "result": "supported"
    },
    {
        "idx": 2,
        "result": "unsupported"
    }
]

Below are the reference and statements:
<reference>
The NFCS
short version
The NFCS short version (15 items) was developed by Webster and Kruglanski (1994), and was
further revised by Pierro (2005 unpublished). Below is the updated version of the short NFCS
published by Roets and Van Hiel (2011). When reporting results the two published scales
should be referenced.
Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive
closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049–1062.
Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A.W. (2005). Revised need for cognitive closure scale. (Unpublished
manuscript). Università di Roma, “La Sapienza”, Rome.
Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the
Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90-94.

Read each of the following statements and decide how much you agree with each according to
your beliefs and experiences. Please respond according to the following scale:

1 = Strongly disagree

4 = Slightly agree

2 = Moderately disagree

5 = Moderately agree

3 = Slightly disagree

6 = Strongly agree

1

I don't like situations that are uncertain.

1

2

3

4

5

6

2

I dislike questions which could be answered in many different
ways.

1

2

3

4

5

6

3

I find that a well ordered life with regular hours suits my
temperament.

1

2

3

4

5

6

4

I feel uncomfortable when I don't understand the reason why an
event occurred in my life.

1

2

3

4

5

6

5

I feel irritated when one person disagrees with what everyone
else in a group believes.

1

2

3

4

5

6

6

I don't like to go into a situation without knowing what I can
expect from it.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

When I have made a decision, I feel relieved

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

When I am confronted with a problem, I’m dying to reach a
solution very quickly.

1

2

3

4

5

6

9

I would quickly become impatient and irritated if I would not
find a solution to a problem immediately.

1

2

3

4

5

6

10

I don't like to be with people who are capable of unexpected
actions.

1

2

3

4

5

6

11

I dislike it when a person's statement could mean many different
things.

1

2

3

4

5

6

12

I find that establishing a consistent routine enables me to enjoy
life more.

1

2

3

4

5

6

13

I enjoy having a clear and structured mode of life.

1

2

3

4

5

6

14

I do not usually consult many different opinions before forming
my own view.

1

2

3

4

5

6

15

I dislike unpredictable situations.

1

2

3

4

5

6

Scoring Note
Scores up to 30 mean low NFC. Scores between 75-90 mean high NFC.
For support, please contact Dr. Erica Molinario (molie@umd.edu)
</reference>

<statements>
1. The standard self-report instrument is the Need for Closure Scale; the 15-item short version includes uncertainty intolerance, preference for order and predictability, urgency (“dying to reach a solution very quickly”), and closed-mindedness, with higher total scores indicating greater closure
2. The scale’s scoring note interprets totals up to 30 as low and 75–90 as high
3. A decisive next step would be a closure-specific meta-analysis and experiments that jointly manipulate accessibility of official explanations, accountability, institutional trust, message repetition, and threat while measuring NFC with validated scales
</statements>

Begin the assessment now. Output only the JSON list, without any conversational text or explanations.