The short answer
For each finding, identify the claim, open every supporting source, confirm that the excerpt is exact and complete enough, establish which source is authoritative, and record any missing or conflicting evidence. If the source cannot support the claim, reject or qualify the finding.
A six-step evidence check
- Restate the claim precisely. “Delivery changed” is incomplete; name both dates and the sources stating them.
- Open every cited passage. Verify the quote against the original source rather than relying on a generated excerpt alone.
- Read the surrounding context. Definitions, conditions, exceptions and section headings may change the meaning.
- Check source authority and chronology. A later email is not automatically a valid amendment. Identify which document controls.
- Inspect coverage. Confirm that all intended files were readable and that no relevant source was omitted or truncated.
- Record the decision. Keep the accepted source, unresolved conflict and follow-up action together.
Evidence states to distinguish
| State | Meaning | Next action |
|---|---|---|
| Supported | The claim and values appear in distinct source passages. | Confirm authority and act if appropriate. |
| Conflicting | Multiple readable sources state incompatible terms. | Determine which source controls or request clarification. |
| Partial | A source was truncated, unreadable or omitted. | Recover the missing content and rerun the comparison. |
| Ambiguous | The words are present but scope, date or responsibility is unclear. | Qualify the finding and seek a clearer source. |
| Unsupported | The cited text does not establish the generated claim. | Reject the finding. |
Worked example
A comparison reports “Payment terms changed from Net 30 to Net 45.” Source A says invoices are payable within 30 days. Source B says within 45 days. The values are supported, but chronology is not established unless the sources are identified as original and revised. The safe finding is “Payment terms differ” until version authority is confirmed.
Partial coverage is a decision, not a footnote
If a scanned appendix cannot be read, a restricted browser page blocks capture, or a long source is truncated, the absence of a finding says little about the missing material. Record the gap, recover a text-based copy or paste the relevant section, and repeat the review.
Using Aelipsis responsibly
Aelipsis keeps source excerpts attached to material findings and exposes incomplete coverage. Basic and Hosted AI do not have identical capabilities. Neither mode promises complete accuracy, legal correctness, or access to every page. The reviewer remains responsible for the original sources and the decision.
A reusable review note
Finding: [precise difference]
Sources checked: [names and locations]
Authority: [which source controls and why]
Coverage gaps: [omitted, scanned or truncated material]
Decision: [accepted, rejected, qualified or unresolved]
Next action: [follow-up owner and date]