**This is a reasoning-based approximation, not a computed Shapley value. Real Kernel SHAP or ContextCite scores require dozens of actual LLM calls on masked document subsets plus a fitted regression — that computation is not happening here. What follows is expert reasoning applying the same marginal-contribution logic to the trace provided, calibrated against documented failure patterns from {Verified-Source-Aug-2026: Nematov et al. 2025, arXiv:2507.04480}. Treat rankings as directional signal for debugging, not as ground truth for a paper, compliance filing, or automated pipeline decision.** ## Phase 1 — Marginal Contribution Estimation **Document 1 — 4/10 {{EVI}{UNCONF}}** The response is fully supportable without Document 1 because Document 2 independently states both OAuth 2.0 bearer-token authentication and use of the Authorization header. **Document 2 — 4/10 {{EVI}{UNCONF}}** The response is fully supportable without Document 2 because Document 1 independently supplies the same authentication method and header requirement. **Document 3 — 0/10 {{EVI}{UNCONF}}** The rate-limit information does not support anything actually stated in the generated response. **Document 4 — 0/10 {{EVI}{UNCONF}}** The JSON response-format information is unrelated to the authentication claim made in the response. ## Phase 2 — Inter-Document Relationships **Redundancy detected: Documents 1 and 2.** Document 1 says Atlas uses “OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens” sent in the Authorization header, while Document 2 independently says Atlas uses OAuth 2.0 with a bearer access token in that same header. Either document alone fully supports the response. **Redundant pairs cannot be reliably distinguished by score alone — the source research found that whichever duplicate is listed first tends to receive an inflated score purely from position, not true higher value. Do not treat a redundant document's higher score as evidence it is more important; treat it as evidence of ordering.** **Complementarity:** none identified. **Synergy:** none identified. ## Phase 3 — Position Bias Check **Position-bias risk identified for Documents 1 and 2.** Because they are near-duplicate sources and Document 1 appears first, any observed advantage for Document 1 should be treated cautiously as potentially ordering-driven rather than evidence of greater informational value. ## Phase 4 — Ranked Output | Document # | Estimated Contribution | Relationship Flags | One-line rationale | | ---------- | ---------------------: | ------------------ | --------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 1 | 4/10 {{EVI}{UNCONF}} | redundant-with-2 | Fully supports the answer, but Document 2 can substitute for it. | | 2 | 4/10 {{EVI}{UNCONF}} | redundant-with-1 | Fully supports the answer, but Document 1 can substitute for it. | | 3 | 0/10 {{EVI}{UNCONF}} | none | Rate limits contribute nothing to the authentication answer. | | 4 | 0/10 {{EVI}{UNCONF}} | none | Response formatting contributes nothing to the authentication answer. | **If you had to remove ONE document from this context set and re-generate, Document 1 or Document 2 would be the strongest attribution test, but neither removal alone is likely to change the answer because the remaining duplicate still fully supports it.**