AI-generated analysis can be clear and well organized while still misreading a source. Review therefore means more than checking that a link exists. Examine what the document says, what the calculation adds, and what the conclusion infers.
Understand what a citation does not establish
NIST’s generative AI profile describes the risk of confidently presented false content, including misleading reasoning or citations. A reference alone cannot validate a conclusion. NIST AI 600-1, section 2.2.
Our review approach separates three questions: does the source exist, does it support the cited fact, and does that fact support the proposed inference? A positive answer to the first does not settle the others. This separation makes verification more focused than rereading the prose and deciding whether it sounds plausible.
Start with decision-critical findings
Not every sentence has equal consequences. Prioritize figures that drive valuation, contractual commitments, cash, intellectual property, and renewal conditions. For each finding, open the relevant page and check its date, scope, and qualifications.
In Sillage, “an Atlas review is scheduled” and “Atlas has renewed” are different claims. The fictional response describes a September 18 review and an October budget decision. It is not a signed renewal. Founder response, page 1, in French.
Recalculate the numbers supporting the argument
Preserve units and periods. Monthly revenue multiplied by twelve is not historical annual revenue. A cash balance is not a cash flow. An average may not describe a representative customer. Reproduce material calculations from their inputs and state the assumptions.
For a simulation, inspect the scenario as well. Losing a large customer can eliminate revenue without immediately eliminating the expenses serving that account. Some costs may be adjustable; others may not. The output matters only if those choices are visible. The goal is to understand sensitivity, not add decimal places.
Compare documents before declaring a contradiction
A deck, customer register, and call transcript can use different definitions. Check dates and scope before labeling a discrepancy a contradiction. The difference may reflect a correction, a changed metric, or genuinely incompatible information.
Then frame the issue as an answerable question: which records disagree, why does it matter, and what evidence would resolve it? A partial answer can improve context without removing uncertainty. Tracking that status matters as much as generating the question in the first place.
Keep the team’s judgment explicit
A reasoned recommendation remains a recommendation. The committee may accept a risk that the analysis flags, or require further evidence. Make disagreement explicit and tie it to the same state of the deal. Preserved versions make it possible to reconstruct what was known when an opinion was formed.
Casian brings sources, analyses, questions, and the memo together for that purpose. The interactive demo presents saved results from a fictional case, allowing visitors to inspect the reasoning without launching a new analysis. The quality of the work also depends on how the team verifies, corrects, and extends those results.