Exact Citation Validation and Review Manifests
Tags: research • citations • review-manifest • validation
Exact Citation Validation and Review Manifests
Summary
Abbey Research can now validate that a reviewed FB-###### citation and its complete quoted text refer to the same frozen-corpus record.
Human decisions are preserved in JSON review manifests rather than existing only in prose aggregates.
Why
Earlier Voice Analysis runs produced plausible-looking failures:
- A valid identifier paired with text from another post.
- An invented identifier.
- Shortened generated quotations.
- Correct candidate retrieval followed by manual decisions that were difficult to validate automatically.
Identifier-presence validation alone could not detect all of these failures.
Result
Three canonical-selection manifests preserve:
- 43 review items.
- 56 exact citations.
- Supporting, contradictory, and comparison roles.
- Retained and provisional decisions.
- Human-review notes.
- Model, prompt, reviewer, date, corpus identity, and corpus fingerprint.
All three manifests pass deterministic validation against CORPUS-001.
Lesson
Citation integrity requires validating the relationship between identifier and text, not merely checking that both appear somewhere.
Review coverage must also be explicit. A canonical evidence selection is useful and verifiable, but it is not the same claim as a complete accounting of every generated candidate.
Next Step
Validate and commit the completed research-platform increment.