SimplBrain
A citation is a starting point, not proof that an AI answer is right
SimplSolutions editorial team · 3 min read
Published
Open the source before accepting the answer
A generated answer can cite a genuine document and still make a claim that the document never makes. It can use a real source that is retired, wrong for the location or outside the employee's audience. Ask the reviewer to locate the supporting passage rather than tick a box because a citation exists.
Break the answer into material claims: required fields, deadline, responsible owner and exception rule. Decorative introductions do not need the same scrutiny as a statement that changes what an employee does next. Record unsupported claims separately from stylistic preferences.
Use three review columns
| Check | Reviewer question | Failure example |
|---|---|---|
| Support | Does this passage establish the claim? | Source lists fields but answer invents an approval limit |
| Applicability | Does this version apply to this audience and task? | Another branch's contact is used |
| Authority | Is explanation being mistaken for permission? | Request preparation becomes spending approval |
The checks are independent. An answer can be supported and applicable while still misrepresenting who decides an exception. That is not merely an unfortunate wording choice when the next person might act on it.
Make an unsupported detail part of the test
In a synthetic procedure, include a form and a coordinator but no approval time. Ask how quickly the request will be approved. An acceptable answer should say the source does not establish timing and identify where to confirm it. The assistant should not turn typical business intuition into a company promise.
Then ask the normal procedure question. This distinguishes a useful boundary from a system that refuses everything. The goal is an applicable answer when support exists and an honest limitation when it does not.
Review summaries for added meaning
A summary can alter a rule even without adding a new sentence. Must be reviewed becomes normally reviewed. May request an exception becomes may proceed. Watch for changed conditions, weakened obligations and lost qualifiers. Compare the operational meaning, not only whether the nouns match.
Ask a source owner to review a small representative batch. Keep a record of which error patterns recur. A repeated loss of conditions suggests changing source structure, instructions or review design rather than correcting each answer as an isolated copy-editing task.
Test after the source changes
Use the same questions against the revised source and inspect the cited version. Retest questions based on the retired rule. A correct answer yesterday is not acceptance evidence for today's source collection.
Include source-link behavior under the employee's identity. A citation that reviewers cannot open may be operationally unusable. A link that exposes material outside the audience may be unacceptable even if the answer itself is accurate.
Keep the score decision-ready
Record supported claims, incorrect material claims, applicable versions, unresolved questions and review minutes. Always show the number of inspected answers. Avoid presenting a vague confidence percentage as if it replaces source review.
Use the Source-Grounded Answer Test Sheet to write expected answers before testing. Request a relevant demo with one current source and one question it does not answer. Ask to see the support and the handoff, not just an impressive paragraph with a link.
