Step 2 · Prove · Prove · Two possible sources, one screen PT·EN
Higgsfield Refund Case · Visual Course

Two possible sources, one screen

See why the monthly screen, with no separate purchased balance, cannot attribute consumption to the purchased lot.

Primary source
Redacted dossier — “Missing public credit attribution”

What this source supports: The interface shows a monthly balance but no separate top-up wallet.

The simple layer stands alone; open the technical layer for limits and objections.
1

The big idea

By the end, you can
  • Separate monthly and purchased credits
  • Explain missing public attribution
  • Ask support the right question

The account has a 6,000-credit monthly plan and a proven additional 5,000-credit purchase. The interface shows 5,176 of 6,000 monthly credits remaining, but no separate purchased balance and no debit order.

Think of it as… a statement that shows only one relevant balance: you see the monthly value but cannot attribute a debit to the purchased lot. The internal system may preserve the separation; the public screen does not reveal it.

Under the hood

The issue is not necessarily proven loss; it is missing observable traceability. At least two policies are possible—monthly-first or top-up-first—and the public screen cannot distinguish them.

2

Visual map

Monthly Top-up Monthly screen Usage
Read left to right: each stage limits what the next may claim.
SCREEN Visible monthly balance LEDGER Origin per event
The case becomes stronger when the evidence boundary stays visible.
6,000 plan
5,176 left
5,000 top-up
Wallet A
Wallet B
No separate balance
Monthly-first
Top-up-first
No order
No split
Balance ≠ ledger
Technical ask
Screen

Visible monthly balance

Ledger

Origin per event

3

In practice

This record turns the reasoning into verifiable fields without personal identifiers.

Structured case record 
{
  "monthly_wallet": {"limit": 6000, "visible_left": 5176},
  "top_up_wallet": {"purchased": 5000, "visible_left": null},
  "debit_order": "not_disclosed"
}

How to verify

Inspect ../../dossie-reembolso-higgsfield.md, the section about missing public separation of credits.

Worked example
1Draw the two possible sources.
2Mark only the monthly balance as visible.
3Request source and debit order for each entry.
4

Try it

Commit before reveal

If 648.5 credits were used on purchase day, which wallet funded that use?

The interface cannot tell. Usage is recorded, but source-wallet attribution is missing.
Commit before revealWallet↻
Reveal answerAn accounting pool with its own origin and rules.
Commit before revealBasket↻
Reveal answerThe screen shows the monthly balance, but not a separate purchased balance.
Commit before revealOrder↻
Reveal answerThe policy that decides which wallet is debited first.
Active review

Answer both questions; the score updates automatically.

What can the screen establish?
The monthly balance appears; attribution to the top-up does not.
Which request resolves ambiguity?
More credits do not explain the past; a source ledger explains each debit.

Sources and traceability

Sources and traceability
RESOURCES.md
Higgsfield Terms of Use
§ 9.3 · § 9.4
Brazilian Consumer Code
Official source · context, not automatic conclusion
Use what you learned to review the request and seek professional guidance if legal or banking consequences matter. Next, classify each statement as evidence, user statement, or inference.