[youssefea]

What changed? Why?

Adds a short "Troubleshooting CDP Paymaster Rejections" section to docs/specifications/transactions/network-fees.mdx. It explains what the CDP Paymaster -32002 error (request denied - no sponsorship and address can not pay with accepted token) means and how it differs from policy rejection messages such as target address not in allowed contracts and method not in allowed methods. It also points to the CDP Portal Logs tab and CDP's error reference and troubleshooting guide.

Closes knowledge gap gap-20260930-cdp-paymaster-32002-usdc-transferwithauthorizati: "A CDP Paymaster on Base returns JSON-RPC error -32002 for a USDC transferWithAuthorization call although another call from the same sender was sponsored moments earlier. What paymaster policy/configuration issue causes this, and where is it fixed?"

Gaps log: https://bdocs.cbhq.net/d/base-knowledge-gaps-log
Tracking: DEVREL-859

Notes to reviewers

Primary sources:

• -32002 code, message, and acceptedTokens in the error data; ERC-20 payments need a token approval to the Paymaster: https://docs.cdp.coinbase.com/paymaster/guides/erc20-gas-payments
• Policy rejection messages (allowed contracts, allowed methods, spend limits, per-address limits, attestation) and the Logs tab in CDP Portal: https://docs.cdp.coinbase.com/paymaster/reference-troubleshooting/errors
• Policy rejection causes and the CDP Portal Paymaster configuration fix: https://docs.cdp.coinbase.com/paymaster/reference-troubleshooting/troubleshooting

This deliberately does not say that the -32002 error on transferWithAuthorization is caused by an allowlist gap. CDP's docs describe -32002 as "no sponsorship and cannot pay with an accepted token," and they list the allowlist and method rejections as separate messages. Before merge, the CDP Paymaster / Base Account SDK owners should please confirm:

• that a -32002 response can come from a gas policy that did not match the call (for example, a method that is not allowlisted), and whether the response text identifies which policy rule failed
• that the guidance to check the exact message and the Portal Logs tab is the right way to diagnose this

This replaces the -32002 paragraph in #2090 (network-fees.mdx) for this gap only. The section is reworded to match CDP's current error reference.

How has it been tested?

• node scripts/lint-mdx.js --files-from=<changed files>: 0 errors, 0 warnings
• node scripts/validate-docs-structure.js: reports 2 existing redirect errors (/upgrades/denim/eip-8130) that also fail on unmodified master. This change does not introduce them.
• All three external CDP links return HTTP 200 (curl -sIL)

Screenshots

N/A (text-only change)

Generated with Toshi

[mintlify]

Preview deployment for your docs. Learn more about Mintlify Previews.

Project	Status	Preview	Updated
base	🟢 Ready	View Preview	Oct 19, 2026, 8:42 PM

💡 Tip: Enable Automations to automatically generate PRs for you.

[cb-heimdall]

🟡 Heimdall Review Status

Requirement	Status	More Info
Reviews	🟡 0/1	Denominator calculation Show calculation 1 if user is bot 0 1 if user is external 0 2 if repo is sensitive 0 From .codeflow.yml 1 Additional review requirements Show calculation Max 0 0 From CODEOWNERS 0 Global minimum 0 Max 1 1 1 if commit is unverified 0 Sum 1

[linear]

DEVREL-859

[github-actions]

Docs review

Risk: Low (one AI review) · risk: low · shadow mode, not enforced

• small change with no risk signals

Verdict: Fits, with changes · reviewed a716a6e with gpt-6-luna

The addition addresses gas-sponsorship troubleshooting and fits the Transactions page’s scope. Clarify that the -32002 error reports no sponsorship, without implying that a policy rule caused it; the material provided distinguishes that error from specific policy rejection messages.

Suggestions

1. Separate the error outcome from its cause (accuracy, docs/specifications/transactions/network-fees.mdx L97) — suggestion posted inline
   The error reports that no sponsorship was applied and the address cannot pay with an accepted token, but the provided material does not establish why sponsorship was absent. State the reported outcome and direct readers to the logs for diagnosis, rather than attributing the cause to the gas policy.
   Evidence: The PR’s cited error-reference description distinguishes “no sponsorship and cannot pay with an accepted token” from separate policy rejection messages such as allowlist failures.

What the reviewer checked

Page	Placement	Index section	Neighbors read
docs/specifications/transactions/network-fees.mdx	Live in navigation	not in llms-full.txt	0

Advisory review from the Docs PR review workflow (run). It does not approve, block, or edit this PR. Add the skip-ai-review label to turn it off for this PR.

[github-actions]

Suggested edits from the docs review. Each one is optional; apply it with "Commit suggestion" if you agree.

[github-actions]

Separate the error outcome from its cause

The error reports that no sponsorship was applied and the address cannot pay with an accepted token, but the provided material does not establish why sponsorship was absent. State the reported outcome and direct readers to the logs for diagnosis, rather than attributing the cause to the gas policy.

Suggested change

- **`-32002` with `request denied - no sponsorship and address can not pay with accepted token`**: Your gas policy did not sponsor the userOperation, and the sender cannot pay gas with an accepted ERC-20 token. The error `data` lists the `acceptedTokens`. If the sender should pay in a token, check that it has approved the Paymaster for enough of that token, as described in [ERC-20 gas payments](https://docs.cdp.coinbase.com/paymaster/guides/erc20-gas-payments). If the operation should be sponsored, find out why your policy did not sponsor it.

- **`-32002` with `request denied - no sponsorship and address can not pay with accepted token`**: No sponsorship was applied, and the sender cannot pay gas with an accepted ERC-20 token. The error `data` lists the `acceptedTokens`. If the sender should pay in a token, check that it has approved the Paymaster for enough of that token, as described in [ERC-20 gas payments](https://docs.cdp.coinbase.com/paymaster/guides/erc20-gas-payments). If you expected sponsorship, use the CDP Portal Logs to identify why the request was not sponsored.