Breaking down: "What does "Per-citation payments weighted by contribution" reveal about gas?"

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 2/5 positive proposal(s): 2 cached + 0 fresh, predicting 2/2 claim(s) above the evidence floor with $0.000000/$0.020000 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 Onchain Micropayments Digest — Per-citation payments weighted by contribution (free) — S1

Reused cached Agent Economy Weekly — x402 turns HTTP 402 into an agent payment rail (free) — S2

Sub-claim "What does the phrase "Per-citation payments weighted by cont…": 90% covered by S1 — The source explicitly defines the phrase: it means paying each cited source in proportion to its contribution to the final answer, with more heavily relied-upon sources earning more. The excerpt directly explains the concept. Coverage is high, but a small gap remains: it doesn't detail the mechanics of how contribution is measured or weighted in practice.

Sub-claim "What does that phrase or concept reveal about gas?": 0% covered — Neither source (S1 or S2) mentions gas, blockchain fees, or any connection between per-citation weighted payments and gas costs. The query specifically asks what the phrase reveals about gas, but the provided text contains no information on this topic.

The first sub-claim (meaning of the phrase) is well-covered (0.9). The second sub-claim (what it reveals about gas) is uncovered (0.0), but none of the skipped sources appear relevant to connecting per-citation payments to gas or blockchain fees based on their titles/previews. The remaining budget (0.02) is too small to buy multiple sources, and no single source seems likely to fill this gap, so purchasing more is not recommended.

Final check — "What does the phrase "Per-citation payments weighted by cont…": 100% assessed by S1

Final check — "What does that phrase or concept reveal about gas?": 0% assessed

Final coverage assessment — The question asks what the phrase 'Per-citation payments weighted by contribution' reveals about gas. The first sub-claim requires defining the phrase, which is directly answered by S1. The second sub-claim asks what the phrase/concept reveals about gas. The sources do not mention 'gas' at all (a term often associated with transaction fees in blockchain contexts). Therefore, there is no evidence to support what this specific phrase reveals about gas. Coverage is 0 for the second sub-claim as the text does not address the concept of gas. The assessment does not establish a complete supported answer for every requested part.

Synthesizing a grounded answer from 2 source(s)…

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

Verified — S1 supports claim 1 at 70%: “A fair model pays each cited source in proportion to its contribution to the final answer.”

Verified — S1 supports claim 1 at 80%: “Heavily-relied-upon sources earn more; lightly-used ones earn less.”

Drafted answer citing 1 source(s)

Confidence: Low — 1 sub-claim remains below the evidence threshold.

Onchain Micropayments Digest contributed 100% → reward $0.02

Settled $0.012 citation reward → Mara Okoye (2a8cbfb5-2…)

Settled $0.008 citation reward → Devin Park (ba31bc16-4…)

Done. Spent $0.02 across 2 confirmed/simulated payment(s) to creators.