Why a source reference is not yet evidence

Define the claim first

An answer can contain several claims within a single sentence. “The lease is current and runs for a fixed term until the end of 2030” asserts both a document status and a contractual provision. Each needs its own basis. If the linked passage only states the lease end, it does not establish that the document is current. A small addition in wording significantly changes the substantive claim.

Start by asking exactly what must be checked. Is it the wording of a document, its applicability today or a decision based on it? Make the verifiable statement as narrow as possible. This reveals whether a finding actually answers the question or merely relates to the topic. Even a useful search result may initially be only a candidate.

Distinguish retrieval from support

Retrieval-Augmented Generation combines information retrieval with text generation. The original RAG approach combines a language model with retrieved passages. This describes a technical approach, not proof of every statement produced through it. The linked research paper explains that connection.

For practical review, two questions follow: was a relevant passage found, and does that passage support this particular answer? A passage may share many words with a question yet concern a different unit, period or exception. Equally, an accurately copied sentence can change meaning through an overly broad summary. A source reference does not solve this problem; it provides access so that the problem can be recognised.

Lewis et al. · Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Place context alongside the passage

Useful evidence can be located with a few details: document, version, page or section, and the specific passage. It also needs the context relevant to the claim. For a lease end, that may be a reference to a rental unit, an option or a break option. An excerpt should not cut those conditions away.

In the illustrative Lindenhof example, the lease end is clearly readable in the lease. Yet a statement about the wording is narrower than a claim about the rule currently in force. Treating them as equivalent skips a review step. A good working note records this distinction alongside the claim so it is not lost when copied into a memo.

Keep the review scope visible

One supported passage and a complete document review are different results. If only page 8 of a lease was considered, no conclusion about all amendments, appendices or subsequent agreements follows. The number of retrieved hits does not automatically describe how much of the relevant collection was reviewed. Inaccessible or poorly readable documents belong among the stated limits.

Record which documents were actually considered and which questions remain unanswered. “No break option in the lease reviewed” is a bounded observation. “The tenant cannot terminate early” is a much stronger claim; in the Lindenhof example it would be wrong as soon as the 2nd amendment is effective. With empty search results in particular, this wording determines whether a gap stays visible or turns into apparent certainty.

Hand over a result for review

A useful handover includes the specific claim, supporting passage, known document version and open questions. The recipient should recognise what is already supported and which decision remains outstanding. This does not require a long technical account. A short note with clear references and a precise question for the responsible person is often sufficient.

For RAIVA, connecting company knowledge, source binding and traceable work is a platform principle. The method and fictional documents shown here do not establish live operation or full automation. Their practical value is a verifiable way of working: define the claim, read the evidence, state the scope and explicitly assign the remaining responsibility. This makes a result usable for the next professional review.