Cited Question Answer
One writer-controlled public article URL, one bounded question about its sources, $249 once. You receive a private PDF and Markdown answer within two business days of scope acceptance, with claim-level citations to up to eight public sources you approve before work starts, attributed excerpts capped at 25 words, and a disposition line for every source we opened — including the ones that had no answer.
Every answer binds the submitted article URL to the source trail, and every unresolved point stays UNKNOWN.
$249 one time — proposed
What the deliverable contains
The answer file has four fixed parts. Nothing is omitted because it was inconvenient, and nothing is added to make the answer look complete.
1. The input-page receipt
A record of the article URL exactly as submitted, the UTC time we retrieved it, the HTTP result the server returned, the byte count of what we received, the SHA-256 of those bytes labelled as file equality only, and the title and canonical link observed in the response. This records one retrieval, not the page's history.
2. Claim-level citations
Each substantive statement in the answer carries its own citation to a specific approved source, not only a bibliography at the end. If two claims rest on two sources, they get two citations. If a claim rests on nothing we could locate, it is marked UNKNOWN and stays that way.
3. The source disposition table
Every source that enters the review leaves with a stated outcome. Seven outcomes are possible:
| Disposition | What it means |
|---|---|
| Supporting | The source contains material that answers part of the question, and that material is cited. |
| Checked, no answer | We opened it and read it. It did not address the bounded question on that page. |
| Unreachable | The URL did not return usable content when tried. We state what happened and do not guess what was there. |
| Indeterminate | The source is relevant but its wording does not settle the point either way. |
| Excluded | We declined it for a stated reason: unclear rights or terms, login required, or another scope boundary. |
| Outside scope | Relevant to another question, but not the bounded question submitted. |
| Beyond cap | A candidate that fell past the eight-source limit. It is named, not silently dropped. |
4. Excerpts and limits
Where a quotation is the clearest evidence, the answer includes an attributed excerpt of at most 25 words. Where 25 words will not carry the meaning, or where terms make quotation inappropriate, the answer gives a locator instead — section, heading, or page — so the buyer can read it in the original. There is no inference from silence: a source that does not say something is not treated as denying it.
Why the input-page receipt matters
An answer about an article is only meaningful if both sides agree on which article, in what state, was actually in front of the researcher. Web pages change. Drafts are republished. A content system rewrites a canonical tag. A source link can be swapped later. When someone asks why an answer said what it said, the dispute may be about what was on the page at the time rather than the reasoning.
The receipt fixes that boundary. It records the question context we received: this URL, retrieved at this UTC time, returning this HTTP result and byte count, with this title and canonical link. If the page changes tomorrow, the receipt still describes what we worked from.
The SHA-256 does one narrow job: it lets anyone compare two files and see whether they are byte-identical. It does not prove who wrote the page, that the content is true, that the page is authentic, that it existed before we fetched it, or that it has not been altered elsewhere. If you need authorship, authenticity, preservation, or chain of custody, this is not that product.
Illustrative mini-sample
This section is illustrative only. It uses example.com, a reserved documentation domain, and bracketed placeholders. No timestamp, hash, byte count, or finding below is real, and none comes from past customer work.
Submitted URL: https://example.com/blog/illustrative-post
Retrieved (UTC): [recorded at retrieval] · HTTP result: [as returned] · Bytes: [as received]
SHA-256 (file equality only): [digest of the bytes received] — compares files; proves nothing about authorship, authenticity, or history.
Title observed: [as present in the response] · Canonical observed: [as present, or NOT PRESENT]
Bounded question: “Which linked sources state a publication or revision date on the cited page itself?”
Illustrative answer shape:
- [count] approved sources display a date on the cited page. Each line names its source and locator.
- [count] display no date on the cited page. That is an observation of those pages, not evidence that the material is undated in origin.
- One approved source did not return usable content: [source] — Unreachable. Its date status is UNKNOWN; no date is inferred from surrounding pages.
Disposition summary: Supporting [count] · Checked, no answer [count] · Unreachable [count] · Indeterminate [count] · Excluded [count] · Outside scope [count] · Beyond cap [count].
A real deliverable follows this shape with observed values in place of every bracket.
How scope review works
- You send one public HTTPS article URL, one bounded question, and an attestation that you control the article or have written authorization to submit it. Do not paste article text.
- We check that the question is source-descriptive, the page is publicly reachable without a login, and the proposed source boundary has clear enough rights and terms.
- We return a source note of at most eight public pages. You approve, remove, or substitute sources in one round.
- After scope acceptance and payment, the two-business-day clock starts. Each retrieval outcome enters a disposition row before the answer is assembled.
- You receive a private PDF and Markdown file. Nothing is published as part of the delivery.
A second source round or a second question is a new scope. An unclear right, term, sensitivity, authorship issue, or advice-shaped question is declined before payment.
What this is not
- No pasted article text, private URL, local URL, login-gated page, or paywall bypass.
- No due diligence on a person or organization, background research, or eligibility decision.
- No legal, medical, financial, editorial, or compliance advice; no rule is applied to buyer facts.
- No completeness claim. The file reports only on the approved sources, capped at eight, and names what fell beyond the cap.
- No authenticity, authorship, preservation, version-history, or chain-of-custody claim.
- No monitoring or change alert. This is one bounded retrieval and answer.
- No affiliation with or endorsement by any publisher, source operator, or government body.
- If source rights or terms are unclear, we decline that source or the entire request before payment.
How this differs from the Federal Source Research Brief
The Federal Source Research Brief starts from an abstract question and a small buyer-approved set of federal executive or legislative .gov pages. There is no article of yours in that scope; the input is a topic and the source universe is official federal material.
This service starts from the opposite end. The input is a specific article you control, and the question describes that article's sources: what they state, whether they support a bounded point, and which were reachable. The input-page receipt is part of the deliverable. If your question has no article attached, the federal brief is the closer fit and this is the wrong request.
Free alternatives — and who should not buy
Much of the mechanical work is free to do yourself. Browser developer tools show the HTTP status, response size, title, and canonical link for a page you load. curl can retrieve the page and sha256sum can digest a saved file. Opening eight sources and writing down which ones answer a question costs time rather than money. If you have that time, use it.
The paid work is a fixed format applied independently of the author: every source leaves with a stated disposition, excerpts stay inside a hard word limit, and unresolved points remain UNKNOWN rather than being smoothed over. That may be useful to an editor, independent writer, content lead, or research lead preparing a source review under a deadline.
Do not buy if you need a truth verdict, an assessment of a person or company, an advice or compliance opinion, proof that a page is authentic, a preserved archive, ongoing monitoring, or a guarantee that all relevant sources have been found. Do not buy if you cannot attest control of or written authorization for the article URL.
Free browser-local scope builder
Shape the two inputs before using the request form. The builder accepts one public HTTPS article URL, one source-descriptive question, and an authority attestation. It makes no network request and does not test the page, decide whether the question is suitable, or request the service.
This page is a demand test
No buyer, sale, adoption, endorsement, or demand is claimed. The request form measures whether a writer will ask for this exact bounded answer at the proposed $249 price. It stores a scope request only: no checkout opens, no invoice is created, no research is scheduled, and neither side has an obligation.
Offer page published by US Tech Automations. Links and source receipts do not imply affiliation, endorsement, or verification by a source operator.