Consensus Free Plan: Budgeting Deep Reviews for One Research Brief

The guide documents natural-language queries, Boolean terms and criteria such as publication period, study type and population. Use those to specify the research task. Changing “tell me about training” into a bounded question can be more useful than purchasing more attempts at the vague version.

A proposed budget for one brief

Suppose a writer is preparing a short evidence brief about spaced versus single-session workplace training, with retention measured after at least four weeks. This is an illustrative research question, not a conclusion about either training method.

Before using advanced analysis, define the audience, population, comparison, outcome and cutoff date. Use paper discovery to check whether the terminology and available studies match that scope. Save promising references and note obvious gaps. Do not spend a Deep review merely to discover that the question combines unrelated populations.

If the account starts with the publicly listed Free allowances and no earlier usage, a possible allocation is:

This arithmetic assumes each proposed Pro submission consumes one message and the documented Free Deep interaction consumes one of each. It is a planning illustration, not an observed billing trace or a guarantee about every follow-up, retry or account type. Check the counter after real use.

The remaining reviews are a reserve, not a target to exhaust. A second Deep review is justified when the first reveals a materially different question, such as whether evidence for students transfers to employees. It is less useful to rerun the same broad request because the first answer was not phrased as desired.

The Deep guide also says its Skills workflows use Deep credits. A citation-verification or literature-review Skill is not a separate free shortcut around that limit. Before choosing a workflow, check which mode and allowance it uses.

Make the output usable before spending another review

Ask for a comparison structure that matches the brief: study population, intervention, comparator, outcome, follow-up period and limitations. Read the sources behind conclusions you intend to publish. If a result is outside your target population, record that mismatch rather than quietly generalizing it.

Consensus's citation guidance explains that a citation checkmark means the platform used full text; without it, analysis relied on the abstract and available metadata. Neither icon establishes what you personally read. A detailed AI account of a method is not a substitute for verifying that method in the paper.

Keep a short evidence log alongside the draft. For each important sentence, retain the source, supporting location, population and limitation. Mark unresolved claims explicitly. Our research-claim checking guide covers that separate review task; the focus here is spending the allowance deliberately.

If a review produces a useful source list, save the references and notes immediately. The Deep guide describes report copying and export options as well as exporting eligible results to CSV or RIS. Check the output you actually receive; do not assume an export establishes exhaustive coverage or gives you the full text of every cited paper.

When Pro is worth paying for

The public individual prices are USD, checked using both Monthly and Annual controls. Annual equivalents are not month-to-month offers.

Sources: live pricing and subscription documentation. Pro and Deep list unlimited Pro messages, while Deep reviews remain metered. These are individual subscriptions, not a shared team license or an unlimited API entitlement. Confirm discounts, taxes and the final checkout terms separately.

For one brief, stay on Free when the remaining allowance covers the scoped questions and manual source reading can finish the work. Consider Pro when an observed Pro-message or Deep-review bottleneck blocks several necessary analyses within the current period. An upgrade buys access; it does not improve the underlying study design or remove your responsibility to check the conclusion.

The annual Pro price saves money against twelve $20 monthly payments, but only if the longer commitment fits your expected use. One urgent brief is not automatically a reason to commit for a year. Check employer or library access before purchasing a duplicate subscription.

Your next step

Open the Consensus card, inspect Settings > Subscription, and write down the two remaining advanced-analysis balances and their reset date. Define the brief before running a Pro or Deep request. Recheck the counter after the first real action, then choose whether the free allowance, a later reset or a paid plan best fits the deadline.

If the question instead needs current web context alongside academic evidence, our Perplexity versus Consensus comparison explains that broader choice. If the obstacle is insufficient relevant evidence, more credits alone will not solve it: narrow the claim, search another appropriate source or leave the conclusion unresolved.