Add citations to blog posts: A summary of the rule is not a citation. The rule is.

The test is whether an honest answer to “where did you get that?” is a URL. A specific number, a named rule or code section, an act, a form mechanic, an agency term, a published government series: those get flagged. Orientation, industry vocabulary and opinion do not. Neither does anything you wrote in the first person, because your own track record is already attributed to you. A claim that already has a link beside it is left alone, and at most seven claims are raised per article, densest first.

One search per claim, then the gate. Domains are classified by tier, and the compliance packs resolved for your site decide which bodies rank as primary, so a medical site hunts its own regulators rather than the SEC. Only one candidate per publisher survives, five at most per claim, and a primary-source-only claim that turns up nothing is searched again restricted to the issuing bodies before Verand concedes. The domains you always prefer and the ones you never want cited are set separately, in Sources and disclaimers.

Only when you press a button, one claim at a time. The default is that you copy the URL, add the citation yourself and tick the claim off. Where the site is connected, Apply to live weaves a superscript source link immediately after that exact sentence, through WordPress, a page builder via the Connector, or a commit to a git-hosted repo. If the sentence has changed since the scan it refuses and tells you, rather than guessing at where the citation belongs.

Thirty a billing period on Starter, 75 on Growth, 200 on Professional and Managed, and 600 on Agency. The unit is articles sourced, not runs, and the pool is shared across every site in the organization. A cached article never counts again, so only genuinely new or edited content draws on it. There are no overage charges: you stop at the cap and decide whether to move up.

Two different answers, because they are two different problems. A normative benchmark that no institution publishes gets a self-attribution card instead of a citation, since writing it as your own judgment is the stronger signal. An objective claim Verand searched for and could not source is listed as unsourced, for you to source yourself or rephrase. Neither is padded out with a general explainer.

No. Citation density and Source quality both raise warnings on the article, never a block, so a thin bibliography is reported rather than gated. What does hard-block is a missing required disclaimer or a banned claim. The Accuracy meter on the Report Card is the other half of the readout: it counts a citation as approved only when the URL resolves, the host is not on your banned list, and it is not one of the general explainers Verand would refuse to recommend.