Skip to main content
Upload a technical report and the source papers it draws on. Ask Anara to be critical: verify that every factual claim can be confirmed by the cited literature, flag what cannot be verified, and tell you where the report overstates or departs from what the sources actually say. For teams that produce technical documentation from primary research and need the claims to hold up to scrutiny.

​
1. Describe the task

The report is written. The sources are uploaded. Before it goes to the client, the regulator, or the review committee, someone needs to check whether what the report claims is actually what the papers show. Anara can be that critical reader. Upload the report and the source literature in a folder, then ask Anara to go through the report’s factual claims one by one and check each against the papers. It flags claims it cannot verify, marks passages where the report overstates or simplifies what the source says, and quotes the specific paper passages that either confirm or contradict the report’s language. Nothing is assumed accurate until it is traced to a source. Here a cosmetic science team at a specialty hair technology company is preparing to publish a technical report on pH-dependent hair fiber reshaping. They have uploaded five source papers and a draft report, and need the claims verified before it goes out. 
Here is a technical report on acidic pH hair reshaping mechanisms. Be critical of it. The source papers it references are already uploaded in my "Hair Chemistry Sources" folder.

Go through the report's factual claims in order. For each claim:
- Find the passage in the source papers that it is based on
- Tell me whether the claim accurately reflects what the paper states
- Flag any claim that overstates, simplifies, or cannot be verified from the uploaded sources

Do not accept the report's characterization of a paper. Go to the paper itself and check.

​
2. Give Anara context

Required context
  • The technical report you want to audit (uploaded to your library or as a chat attachment).
  • The source papers in a named folder. Anara searches the folder, not your entire library.
Optional context
  • Any claims you already suspect are problematic. Naming them lets Anara prioritize those sections first.
  • The intended audience for the report (regulatory submission, client deliverable, journal submission). This helps Anara calibrate what level of precision the claims need to meet.

​
3. What Anara creates

A claim-by-claim audit organized in the order the claims appear in the report. Each entry states the claim, quotes the relevant passage from the source paper, and gives a verdict: verified, partially verified (with what the source actually says), or not found in uploaded sources. The audit is the internal quality check you run before the report leaves your team. Where Anara cannot verify a claim, that is a signal to either find a better source or revise the language before distribution.

​
4. Follow-up prompts

​
Revise a flagged claim

When a claim is flagged as overstated, draft a corrected version that stays within what the source supports. 
The claim flagged in section 3 about supercontraction rates overstates what the Smith et al. paper reports. Rewrite that sentence using only what that paper actually states, keeping the original meaning as close as possible.

​
Check whether a missing source exists

When a claim in the report is plausible but not supported by the uploaded papers. 
The report claims that disulfide bond reformation at low pH is reversible within 24 hours. None of the uploaded papers confirm this. Search the academic literature for papers that support or contradict this claim. Return the most relevant results with abstracts.

​
Confirm the document’s overall accuracy rate

When the audit is complete and you want a summary for stakeholders. 
Based on the audit we just completed, what percentage of the report's factual claims were fully verified, partially verified, or not found? Give me a brief summary I can include in the document review log.

​
5. Tricks, tips, and troubleshooting

​
How you word your prompt shapes what you get

The critical instruction “go to the paper itself and check” is the most important phrase in the prompt. Without it, Anara tends to verify claims by reasoning about what is plausible rather than by looking for the specific passage. Naming the folder explicitly ensures Anara searches only your curated source set and does not supplement with library documents from other projects. For reports with domain-specific vocabulary, include a note in the prompt: “terms like ‘elongation set’ and ‘supercontraction’ are specific to this field; treat them as technical terms, not general descriptions.”

​
Check the output against your own understanding

Anara searches for passages that semantically match the claim being checked. A passage can be thematically adjacent without being the specific quantitative result the report cites. The failure mode to watch for: a claim about a specific measurement (a percentage, a timeframe, a statistical result) that is flagged as verified based on a qualitative passage that only describes the phenomenon generally. For quantitative claims, read the quoted passage yourself and confirm it includes the specific number the report states.

​
What to do with the output next

Use the audit log as the final QA step before distribution. All flagged claims should be resolved before the document leaves your team: either find a supporting source or revise the language to match what the uploaded papers actually say. For reports going to regulatory audiences, the audit log itself may be worth retaining as part of the document review record: it shows that claims were checked against primary sources before submission.