Claim

Model ledger-default@0.1.0 ledger-strict@0.1.0 ledger-default@0.2.0 ledger-strict@0.2.0 ledger-default@0.3.0 (default) ledger-strict@0.3.0 Snapshot seq

Topics

Wildlife · 1efd24fe Business · 1efd24fe

Assessment

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.

Show calculation

Your view

Registered views

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

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)