This is a clicker style and the brand is Titan. I've never had the guts out to see the design of the internals. On the outside it does not look like a Proto pearhead copy.
I was using a 21 or 22 mm 6-point socket. Lug stud threads were dry. But, I have heard that if you oil them or use anti-seize, you decrease the required torque by 30% or so to compensate. I don't know if that is correct.
The wrench does not do this each time it hits final torque. It's only done it once so far.
The explanation involving the pawl slipping sounds plausible to me.
From one of several threads about torque compensation for lubricant on threads:
Re: Torque number with Anti-seize
The torque required for a bolted joint design comes from a long string of calculations, but boils down to a simple linear equation.
T = Wp x K x dn
Where T=torque; Wp=fastener preload; K=torque coeff; dn=diameter
The factor that changes with dry vs lubricated fasteners is the "torque coefficient" and is published for a variety of cases. Various values exist, mine are taken from DuPont Engineering Specification (10 pages of calcs). Examples:
Dry steel fasteners: K=0.20
Lightly oiled steel: K=0.15
Cad Plated: K=0.14
Anti Seize on steel: K=0.13 (as published by Bostik for their Never Seez products)
Graphite & mineral oil: K=0.10
Using Never Seize versus dry uncoated steel, multiply the specified torque by 0.65.
A very light coating on the threads only to prevent corrosion and/or galling is all that's needed. As is the case with most Anti Seize applications, a little goes a long way.