Breaking down: "Can you give a concrete example of an agent deciding when to stop buying sources using published source material?"

Identified 2 research target(s) to investigate; these are not established facts

Deep mode: up to 4 paid/cached reads plus one bounded gap-expansion pass when needed.

Discovered 21 verified source(s)

Recalled 60 past runs on this subject — how these sources performed when they were available.

ERC-8004 reputation loaded — composite scores on this subject.

Claim-aware portfolio selected 1/1 positive proposal(s): 1 cached + 0 fresh, predicting 2/2 claim(s) above the evidence floor with $0.000000/$0.015000 fetch USDC reserved.

Free-preview pre-check maps an actionable source to every sub-claim (2/2); paid reading may proceed within the budget.

Agent spend wallet ready: 0x29028Fe1122E17Fe7863A22701e863FE4DaE1aFB (balance sufficient)

Reused cached Keryx Engineering (first-party) — Recovering a Keryx paid research job (free) — S1

Sub-claim "What is a concrete example of an agent deciding when to stop…": 10% covered by S1 — S1 describes a buyer client that separates quoting, buying, and recovering a research job, and warns against deleting the journal and buying again after ambiguous failures. It gives a concrete scenario of not re-buying (stop buying again) after a connection failure or restart, but it does not present an agent explicitly deciding when to stop buying sources in general. This is topical context, not a direct answer.

Sub-claim "How does an agent determine the stopping point for purchasin…": 10% covered by S1 — S1 mentions an all-in price ceiling and a resume command that sends only GET requests without replaying a purchase, and warns that ambiguous cases may require operator reconciliation. These are related purchasing controls, but no procedure or criterion for determining when to stop buying sources is stated. The supplied passages do not answer the stopping-point question.

Coverage is low for both sub-claims. The gathered first-party note gives a concrete non-repurchase scenario but not an explicit agent stopping decision or a stopping-point procedure. Affordable skipped sources that could fill the gap are prioritized: idempotency keys for safe retries and avoiding double-spends (0.003), stablecoin unit-of-account budgeting for agents (0.003), and x402 inline agent payment rail (0.004). Total cost 0.010 fits the remaining budget of 0.015. Other skipped sources are unrelated or less directly relevant.

Filling gap — buying Distributed Systems Notes — Idempotency keys prevent double-spends ($0.003)…

Paid $0.003 to Distributed Systems Notes — Idempotency keys prevent double-spends (settled 66ea3b47-d…) — S2

Filling gap — buying Stablecoin Ledger — Stablecoins as the unit of account for agents ($0.003)…

Paid $0.003 to Stablecoin Ledger — Stablecoins as the unit of account for agents (settled a1650c31-2…) — S3

Filling gap — buying Agent Economy Weekly — x402 turns HTTP 402 into an agent payment rail ($0.004)…

Paid $0.004 to Agent Economy Weekly — x402 turns HTTP 402 into an agent payment rail (settled 728e5786-a…) — S4

Final check — "What is a concrete example of an agent deciding when to stop…": 10% assessed by S1

Final check — "How does an agent determine the stopping point for purchasin…": 10% assessed by S1, S2

Final coverage assessment — The supplied sources describe an agent's payment and recovery mechanics but do not provide a concrete example of an agent deciding when to stop buying sources, nor do they state a stopping rule or procedure for determining when to stop purchasing sources. S1 covers buying, price ceilings, receipts, and reconciliation, but not a stopping decision. S2–S4 are topical context about idempotency, stable units of account, and x402 payment rails, none of which answers the requested stopping-point question. The assessment does not establish a complete supported answer for every requested part.

Synthesizing a grounded answer from 4 source(s)…

Relevance review returned; only checked excerpts can retain support, and review cannot raise it.

Below reward gate — S1 supports claim 1 at 10%: “The buyer provides a trusted Keryx treasury payee and an all-in price ceiling.”

Below reward gate — S1 supports claim 1 at 10%: “Buyers should inspect both the research result and its economics before judging the outcome.”

Below reward gate — S1 supports claim 2 at 20%: “The all-in ceiling includes both the service fee and creator budget.”

Below reward gate — S2 supports claim 2 at 0%: “In a payment system, keying on (payer, resource, nonce) prevents charging twice when a client retries after a timeout.”

Below reward gate — S3 supports claim 2 at 10%: “Dollar stablecoins like USDC let an agent price expected value against cost in stable terms, which is a precondition for rational spending d…”

Below reward gate — S4 supports claim 2 at 10%: “Agents can therefore pay per request with no accounts or API keys, discovering and purchasing data autonomously at runtime.”

Rejected 0 invalid evidence span(s) and 4 unsupported citation marker(s); rejected markers cannot receive citation rewards.

No citation passed the evidence gate — the $0.015000 citation pool stays unspent; settled access tolls still stand.

Drafted answer citing 0 source(s)

Confidence: Low — no citation passed the evidence gate.

Done. Spent $0.01 across 3 confirmed/simulated payment(s) to creators.