Audit a technical report

Upload a technical report and the source papers it draws on, and Anara checks every factual claim against the literature, flagging what cannot be verified and where the report overstates its sources. Use it as the final check before a report goes to a client, regulator, or review committee.

Prompt

A cosmetic science team verifies a draft report on pH-dependent hair fiber reshaping against five source papers.

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.

What to add to your library

• Required: the technical report, in your library or as a chat attachment.
• Required: the source papers in a named folder. Anara searches the folder, not your whole library.
• Optional: claims you already suspect, so Anara checks those first.
• Optional: the intended audience (regulatory submission, client deliverable, journal), to calibrate the precision required.

What you get

• A claim-by-claim audit in the order claims appear in the report.
• The source passage quoted for each claim.
• A verdict per claim: verified, partially verified (with what the source actually says), or not found in uploaded sources.

Follow-ups

Revise a flagged claim to fit the source.

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.

Look for a source the folder is missing.

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.

Tips

• "Go to the paper itself and check" is the key phrase. Without it, Anara may judge plausibility instead of finding the passage.
• For quantitative claims, confirm the quoted passage contains the actual number, not just a general description of the phenomenon.
• Tell Anara which field-specific terms are technical, so they are not read as general descriptions.
• For regulatory audiences, keep the audit log as part of the document review record.