Build a literature comparison matrix that actually lets you compare studies, not just list them

Build a literature comparison matrix from the sources below, structured so studies can actually be compared against each other on the same dimensions, not just summarized one after another.

SOURCES
Study A (n=200, retail workers): found flexible scheduling increased retention 12%. Study B (n=45, healthcare workers): found no retention effect but improved self-reported wellbeing. Study C (n=310, mixed industries): retention improved only among workers with caregiving responsibilities.

COMPARISON DIMENSIONS
sample size and population, methodology (survey/experiment/observational), retention effect found, wellbeing effect found, key limitation stated by the authors

WHAT I'M TRYING TO DECIDE OR ARGUE
Deciding whether to recommend flexible scheduling company-wide or only for specific employee segments.

For each source, extract only what's needed to fill each dimension in sample size and population, methodology (survey/experiment/observational), retention effect found, wellbeing effect found, key limitation stated by the authors — do not include a general summary of the source alongside the matrix; the matrix itself is the deliverable, not a supplement to a separate summary. If a source doesn't report information for a given dimension, mark that cell as "not reported" rather than leaving it blank or inferring a plausible value — a matrix that silently fills gaps with inference is more dangerous than one that's honest about what's missing, because the gaps are exactly what someone comparing methodologies needs to see.

After the matrix, add one row of pattern notes per dimension: where sources cluster, where they diverge, and whether any divergence tracks a specific difference in method (sample size, population, measurement approach) rather than being unexplained disagreement. Only claim a divergence "tracks a methodological difference" if the sources actually differ on that specific method — don't manufacture a tidy methodological explanation for a disagreement that might just be genuine disagreement.

Given what I'm trying to decide or argue, close with a short note on which specific cells in the matrix are most load-bearing for that purpose — the ones where the sources most directly bear on my actual question, as distinct from dimensions that are interesting background but don't move my argument either way.

OUTPUT FORMAT
A matrix table: rows are sources, columns are the comparison dimensions. Below it, one pattern-note line per dimension. Close with the load-bearing cells note.