Contextual validation, not truth

"The angle is not just, is this statement correct in itself; the question is, is this correct in this context, for this use, for this conclusion." A refinement made on 31 July 2026 that changes what is actually billable.

The value split

Reader pays the outlet. The value behind that payment, per the origin document, actually breaks down: 60% original researcher · 25% data organisation · 10% journalist synthesis · 5% outlet distribution. Today, essentially all of that revenue is captured at the 5% layer. Provenance makes the other 95% visible; the argument is that visibility is what makes it payable.

What is actually billable

Not is this true — a question with no clean billing event, since truth does not have a moment of consumption. Instead: is this use of it sound, evaluated and cached per claim-and-context pair. The same underlying fact can be soundly used in one argument and unsoundly extended in another; the design bills the validation of a specific use, not a one-time certification of the fact in isolation. This is theme 4's central mechanical idea, and the pack is explicit that every open question about metering, settlement and licensing is still open — see the payment rails page and the open questions.

"None of it attached to the claim"

Returning to the 10,000-hours case from the economics side rather than the corrections side: "the person best placed in the world to say that is not what my study showed had no channel, no standing at the point of use, and no economic reason to keep doing it beyond his own conviction." A contextual-validation market is, among other things, a proposed economic reason. Whether it would have actually reached the researcher in this specific case is untested.