See what is established
Separate verified facts and supported findings from claims, repetition, inference and assumption.
AI-generated research review
Test whether AI-generated research can be trusted before it is relied upon or published.
A human-directed audit of claims, citations, quotations, calculations and source relationships in an AI-generated report, article, presentation or research product.
This service is one application of Aperture’s controlled evidence-assurance framework. Research is the process. Responsible reliance is the product.
See the work
See this standard in practice.
Review Selected Work and clearly labelled examples, then consider how a comparable evidence-assurance assignment could be scoped for your decision.
When this product is useful
Use this where an AI-assisted product may influence a publication, transaction, policy position, internal decision or professional recommendation.
- The document contains many citations that have not been independently checked.
- Some references may be fabricated, mismatched, circular or too weak for the claim.
- The output sounds confident but the evidence trail is unclear.
- A human reviewer needs a structured reliability finding before use.
What Aperture may test
The review is shaped to the document and intended use. It does not assume that AI-generated material is wrong, and it does not treat machine confidence as evidence.
- Existence and accessibility of cited sources.
- Whether quotations, figures and dates match the underlying source.
- Whether the cited source actually supports the stated claim.
- Duplicate, circular or source-dependent citation patterns.
- Omitted counter-evidence, qualifications and material context.
- Unsupported inference, overstatement and fabricated references.
What the client may receive
The output is designed to show what can be retained, corrected, qualified or removed before reliance.
- Claims-and-citations register.
- Verified, unsupported, contradicted and unresolved classifications.
- Source-quality observations and citation corrections.
- Material omissions and counter-evidence.
- Overall reliability assessment and publication or decision questions.
Professional boundaries
Aperture assesses the evidence and the research product. It does not certify an AI model, guarantee the absence of every error or replace legal, medical, financial, engineering or other regulated specialist review where required.
Start with the question, not a forced package.
Aperture will assess the decision, available material, intended use and evidence burden before recommending the smallest responsible scope.
Client responsibility
Aperture informs the decision. It does not make the decision.
Aperture identifies what the evidence supports, what remains uncertain and what should not yet be relied upon. The client retains responsibility for the final commercial, legal, investment, publication, governance or operational decision.
What the work involves
Human research and review are performed for the agreed scope.
The work may include extracting material claims, opening and checking cited sources, locating primary records, testing whether citations support the precise wording, identifying source dependence, searching for omitted contrary evidence, assessing overstatement and preparing a documented human-reviewed finding.
Client outcome
How this helps you make the decision
Aperture is not adding research for its own sake. The work is scoped around the decision you need to make and the evidence that could materially change it.
See what could change the answer
Keep contradictions, missing evidence, alternative explanations and specialist dependencies visible before reliance.
Know the responsible next step
Understand what the evidence supports now, what it does not support and whether further work is proportionate.