Claim

In a Brazilian Amazon randomized trial, the flexible payment contract saved slightly more forest, while the fixed zero-deforestation contract had a higher benefit-cost ratio.

Type COMPARATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 15397

a comma-separated series may list several propositions

Referenced 81 times: checked 1, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 61, shared 19. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Wildlife · 1efd24fe Business · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Unresolved

Score: 0.5000 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

3 of 4 review checks done · 1 counted · 2 by the author only

2 independent evidence lineages · review checks 1 of 4 · stability HIGH

Main unresolved issue: 4 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:e9f2864e-92ad-8728-a3a9-effadb808efb

Not yet independently audited.Evidence points both ways.

Why?

Strongest counted support: A trial summary reports slightly greater forest savings under the flexible contract but a higher benefit-cost ratio under the fixed contract. weight 1.800000 evidence

Strongest counted contradiction: The Nature Communications study reports better cost-effectiveness for the flexible contract, contradicting the claim that the fixed contract had the higher benefit-cost ratio. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The passage directly states that flexible payment saved slightly more forest, while fixed zero-deforestation payment had the higher benefit-cost ratio.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Unresolved to Contradicted.

Hide calculation

0.5000 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 · state Unresolved · Review checks: 1 of 4 · stability HIGH · 4 sources, 2 independent lineages

Model ledger-default@0.3.0 (the default model, not the answer) · snapshot 27745 · trace sha256:7f23d860e3ee3fce9414e175fd202d7e801fce39daad0be3f1803258945a11f2

Last changed at entry seq 15687; nothing logged since has borne on this claim.

How the number was reached

Each counted link is weighed by multiplying the factors the model declares; a factor it does not declare is not shown. Every factor name below links to what that number means.

Link	Working	Weight	Counted as
6c1006ed support	relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	1.800000	1.800000
f2805de9 support	relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	1.800000	0.000000 (dependent strongest only, kept 6c1006ed)
dde7ee56 qualify	relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	1.800000	0.000000 (non directional)
c81c1415 contradict	relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1	1.800000	1.800000

prior 0.50 → log-odds 0.000000 + 0.000000 (the counted weights) = 0.000000 → probability 0.5000

Under neighbouring settings of the same model: 0.5000 to 0.5000, a spread of 0.0000.

Half-even rounding, six places for weights and four for the probability. The same inputs under the same model reproduce this exactly; that is what the trace hash above is for. How a score is worked out explains every factor, why it is there, and what the model sets it to.

Your view

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

“In a Brazilian Amazon randomized trial, the flexible payment contract saved slightly more forest, while the fixed zero-deforestation contract had a higher...” · 2 claims · 29 September 2026

Evidence for

A trial summary reports slightly greater forest savings under the flexible contract but a higher benefit-cost ratio under the fixed contract.

From Greater Flexibility in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from an RCT in the Amazon Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

The passage directly states the comparative outcome.
The passage directly states that flexible payment saved slightly more forest, while fixed zero-deforestation payment had the higher benefit-cost ratio.

From Greater Flexibility in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from an RCT in the Amazon Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

Evidence against

The Nature Communications study reports better cost-effectiveness for the flexible contract, contradicting the claim that the fixed contract had the higher benefit-cost ratio.

From Adding flexibility to payments for environmental services enhances cost-effectiveness in the Brazilian Amazon Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

The source directly reverses the claimed contract ranking for cost-effectiveness; it also reports greater forest savings under the flexible contract.

Qualifications

The counted passage gives the contract comparison but omits the trial's time range, sample population, denominator, and Brazilian-randomized-study context.

From Greater Flexibility in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from an RCT in the Amazon Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

The excerpt directly states the outcome comparison but does not itself establish the geographic, design, sampling, or temporal qualifiers in the broader claim.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
618b4c6d		6c1006ed

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

3 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 OPPOSING EVIDENCE SEARCH · 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	no
opposing search done	no
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	yes	c81c1415

Summary

Unresolved. The main support is: A trial summary reports slightly greater forest savings under the flexible contract but a higher benefit-cost ratio under the fixed contract. 80bab43a

Against that, contradiction: The Nature Communications study reports better cost-effectiveness for the flexible contract, contradicting the claim that the fixed contract had the higher benefit-cost ratio. b958e256

1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. 618b4c6d

Qualifier: The counted passage gives the contract comparison but omits the trial's time range, sample population, denominator, and Brazilian-randomized-study context. 062df906

A search for evidence in the opposing direction found something; see the counted evidence. a2613585

Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:e9f2864e-92ad-8728-a3a9-effadb808efb

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
15397	APPENDED
15398	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
15403	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
15503	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
15587	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
15686	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)

Score trace

{
  "claim": "e9f2864e-92ad-8728-a3a9-effadb808efb",
  "links": [
    {
      "link": "1e2eb1ce-f787-8878-8ee7-8cb16c1006ed",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "021dab19-6508-8273-b7b0-4e5580bab43a",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "WEBSITE",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "1.800000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    },
    {
      "kept": "1e2eb1ce-f787-8878-8ee7-8cb16c1006ed",
      "link": "3c8534db-3c5d-8d8f-9101-bc93f2805de9",
      "group": null,
      "reason": "dependent_strongest_only",
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "688515f2-c2aa-88ec-936b-13ba618b4c6d",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "WEBSITE",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "0.000000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    },
    {
      "link": "40ef887e-db20-8217-a5fc-c5dbdde7ee56",
      "group": null,
      "reason": "non_directional",
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "fd6997f3-24d8-85b1-b680-bded062df906",
      "direction": "QUALIFY",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "WEBSITE",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "0.000000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    },
    {
      "link": "e10ca01b-7c6a-8570-bd3a-9379c81c1415",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "34261247-0f3e-89b3-a273-85a6b958e256",
      "direction": "CONTRADICT",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "1.800000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    }
  ],
  "model": "ledger-default@0.3.0",
  "prior": "0.50",
  "variants": {
    "spread": "0.0000",
    "permissive": "0.5000",
    "conservative": "0.5000"
  },
  "code_hash": "sha256:c61a6fdf35a754a0d7e958df149036a083c0eaeb7d2d2e52704ec32b0c36def7",
  "contested": true,
  "stability": "HIGH",
  "claim_type": "COMPARATIVE",
  "config_hash": "sha256:86768038080b8ab5233f1e4b7aba10af05b5bb44caa432095150b90e81209809",
  "probability": "0.5000",
  "provisional": true,
  "evidence_sum": "0.000000",
  "snapshot_seq": 15687,
  "prior_log_odds": "0.000000",
  "support_groups": 1,
  "model_dependent": false,
  "review_coverage": "0.25",
  "truth_evaluable": true,
  "assessment_state": "UNRESOLVED",
  "review_checklist": {
    "qualifiers_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "opposing_search_done": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "independence_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "primary_source_reviewed": {
      "by": [
        "e10ca01b-7c6a-8570-bd3a-9379c81c1415"
      ],
      "ok": true
    }
  },
  "contradict_groups": 1,
  "rounding_boundary": false,
  "posterior_log_odds": "0.000000",
  "not_applicable_reason": null,
  "independence_unreviewed": 4
}