{"id":"7b777a1b29c8e8c7b636edfe622f7933f922978fa28cd98dfa0392be86a2d27a","title":"How LLM answer cues relate to user scrutiny","argument":"Ahana Biswas and Yu-Ru Lin study how features of large language model answers relate to users accepting, checking or challenging them, using 489,283 assistant-user response pairs from ShareChat and WildChat. They report a gap between broad attribution language and inspectable support: qualifying responses included broad attribution much more often than explicit URLs. Attribution, uncertainty and other cues generally accompanied both checking and challenging; uncertainty had a small pooled association favoring checking. The pattern varied by conversation type: in Technical Help, uncertainty favored checking relative to challenging, while in Seeking Information, refusals and reasoning traces favored challenging. The authors also report that scrutiny is concentrated in some conversations, but apparent turn-to-turn persistence shrinks when conversation-level differences and response ordering are examined separately. Their argument is that supporting verification takes more than signaling that an answer is grounded: the evidence must be inspectable, and the question being resolved and interaction history matter too. The abstract reports associations, not evidence that these answer cues cause users to scrutinize responses.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The evidence supplied is the paper’s abstract; it does not give the full methods or explain how qualifying responses and conversation types were defined. The abstract describes associations and does not establish that answer cues cause users to check or challenge responses.","speaker":{"name":"Biswas, Ahana, Lin, Yu-Ru","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"Signals, Evidence, and Context: User Scrutiny in Real-World LLM Conversations","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","publishedAt":"2026-11-05","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"Biswas and Lin examine associations between answer features and users’ accepting, checking or challenging in 489,283 assistant-user response pairs from ShareChat and WildChat.","excerpt":"We study how features of these answers relate to users' subsequent accepting, checking, and challenging in 489,283 assistant-user response pairs from ShareChat and WildChat.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Broad attribution language is more common than explicit URLs in qualifying responses, which the authors describe as a gap between claims of grounding and inspectable support.","excerpt":"Broad attribution language appears in 31.9% of qualifying responses, compared with explicit URLs in 1.33%, revealing a gap between claims of grounding and preserved inspectable support.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The reported associations vary: uncertainty has a small pooled association favoring checking, with different cue patterns in Technical Help and Seeking Information.","excerpt":"only uncertainty shows a small statistically distinguishable pooled association favoring checking. Within Technical Help, uncertainty favors checking relative to challenging; refusals and reasoning traces favor challenging in Seeking Information.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Scrutiny is concentrated in some conversations, and apparent turn-to-turn persistence becomes smaller after examining conversation-level differences and response ordering separately.","excerpt":"Scrutiny is concentrated in some conversations, while its apparent turn-to-turn persistence becomes much smaller when conversation-level differences and response ordering are examined separately.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors argue that supporting verification requires attention to inspectable evidence, the user’s question and interaction history.","excerpt":"These results suggest that supporting verification requires attention to what evidence can be inspected, which question a user is trying to resolve, and the history of the interaction.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T04:04:08.368Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"How do the authors determine whether users’ checking or challenging reflects answer cues rather than differences between conversations and response order?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"How LLM answer cues relate to user scrutiny","summary":"Ahana Biswas and Yu-Ru Lin study how features of large language model answers relate to users accepting, checking or challenging them, using 489,283 assistant-user response pairs from ShareChat and WildChat. They report a gap between broad attribution language and inspectable support: qualifying responses included broad attribution much more often than explicit URLs. Attribution, uncertainty and other cues generally accompanied both checking and challenging; uncertainty had a small pooled association favoring checking. The pattern varied by conversation type: in Technical Help, uncertainty favored checking relative to challenging, while in Seeking Information, refusals and reasoning traces favored challenging. The authors also report that scrutiny is concentrated in some conversations, but apparent turn-to-turn persistence shrinks when conversation-level differences and response ordering are examined separately. Their argument is that supporting verification takes more than signaling that an answer is grounded: the evidence must be inspectable, and the question being resolved and interaction history matter too. The abstract reports associations, not evidence that these answer cues cause users to scrutinize responses.","question":"How do the authors determine whether users’ checking or challenging reflects answer cues rather than differences between conversations and response order?","claims":[{"text":"Biswas and Lin examine associations between answer features and users’ accepting, checking or challenging in 489,283 assistant-user response pairs from ShareChat and WildChat.","excerpt":"We study how features of these answers relate to users' subsequent accepting, checking, and challenging in 489,283 assistant-user response pairs from ShareChat and WildChat.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Broad attribution language is more common than explicit URLs in qualifying responses, which the authors describe as a gap between claims of grounding and inspectable support.","excerpt":"Broad attribution language appears in 31.9% of qualifying responses, compared with explicit URLs in 1.33%, revealing a gap between claims of grounding and preserved inspectable support.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The reported associations vary: uncertainty has a small pooled association favoring checking, with different cue patterns in Technical Help and Seeking Information.","excerpt":"only uncertainty shows a small statistically distinguishable pooled association favoring checking. Within Technical Help, uncertainty favors checking relative to challenging; refusals and reasoning traces favor challenging in Seeking Information.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Scrutiny is concentrated in some conversations, and apparent turn-to-turn persistence becomes smaller after examining conversation-level differences and response ordering separately.","excerpt":"Scrutiny is concentrated in some conversations, while its apparent turn-to-turn persistence becomes much smaller when conversation-level differences and response ordering are examined separately.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors argue that supporting verification requires attention to inspectable evidence, the user’s question and interaction history.","excerpt":"These results suggest that supporting verification requires attention to what evidence can be inspected, which question a user is trying to resolve, and the history of the interaction.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The evidence supplied is the paper’s abstract; it does not give the full methods or explain how qualifying responses and conversation types were defined.","The abstract describes associations and does not establish that answer cues cause users to check or challenge responses."],"mediaId":"7fd65ba2c730de2fabf32d17880a7dcfbe5047b91d828b5056282e6618d581bb","correctionReason":null,"id":"7b777a1b29c8e8c7b636edfe622f7933f922978fa28cd98dfa0392be86a2d27a","publicationId":"201704e3-3413-47ad-87c5-cb5f3b2c84cc","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","sourceTitle":"Signals, Evidence, and Context: User Scrutiny in Real-World LLM Conversations","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-11-05","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-06T05:12:39.687Z","createdAt":"2026-11-09T03:01:21.028Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"7fd65ba2c730de2fabf32d17880a7dcfbe5047b91d828b5056282e6618d581bb","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T02:55:15.796Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T04:04:08.368Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["useful_perspective"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v5","mediaId":"7fd65ba2c730de2fabf32d17880a7dcfbe5047b91d828b5056282e6618d581bb","confidence":0.73,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"ea3e7c9279d63ecf5e74834979a33c71547a00983645e21c231540dfc47c9013","decidedAt":"2026-11-09T02:55:16.543Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"0133ca7eb43705a7160a95666619f2626a34152e0b7aeb782d49f5c4938b9256","observationId":"f1b070940d9820d84c32ec7a9903a41f68dd3a1d0c4db6ad1fe2f7660e724334","retrievedAt":"2026-11-09T02:55:15.689Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"6a147823-e67d-48f6-8786-c1dce89dc78e"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"2e698c6a-adb8-46c4-8495-51255b09a8e8"}},"audit":{"status":"passed","reviewedAt":"2026-11-09T03:01:21.028Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Biswas, Ahana","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Lin, Yu-Ru","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Biswas, Ahana","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Biswas, Ahana","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"18b824b49342450700ba302944c9050d0acfa2408fe3b7ebc2a809deb90a6657:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-09T04:04:08.368Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"18b824b49342450700ba302944c9050d0acfa2408fe3b7ebc2a809deb90a6657","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","contentSha256":"cfa55ee0a0bb9740b8e1c2eaaaccefa3448d6c9ae334142f9f5e8d8afdf25638","textHash":"0133ca7eb43705a7160a95666619f2626a34152e0b7aeb782d49f5c4938b9256","observedAt":"2026-11-09T04:04:08.368Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Lin, Yu-Ru","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Lin, Yu-Ru","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"18b824b49342450700ba302944c9050d0acfa2408fe3b7ebc2a809deb90a6657:participation:1","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-09T04:04:08.368Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"18b824b49342450700ba302944c9050d0acfa2408fe3b7ebc2a809deb90a6657","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","contentSha256":"cfa55ee0a0bb9740b8e1c2eaaaccefa3448d6c9ae334142f9f5e8d8afdf25638","textHash":"0133ca7eb43705a7160a95666619f2626a34152e0b7aeb782d49f5c4938b9256","observedAt":"2026-11-09T04:04:08.368Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":2,"returned":2,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","snapshotId":"18b824b49342450700ba302944c9050d0acfa2408fe3b7ebc2a809deb90a6657","contentSha256":"cfa55ee0a0bb9740b8e1c2eaaaccefa3448d6c9ae334142f9f5e8d8afdf25638","textHash":"0133ca7eb43705a7160a95666619f2626a34152e0b7aeb782d49f5c4938b9256","observedAt":"2026-11-09T04:04:08.368Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":40,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/7b777a1b29c8e8c7b636edfe622f7933f922978fa28cd98dfa0392be86a2d27a/source"}},"canonicalUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/how-llm-answer-cues-relate-to-user-scrutiny-7b777a1b","formats":{"html":"/readings/how-llm-answer-cues-relate-to-user-scrutiny-7b777a1b","markdown":"/readings/how-llm-answer-cues-relate-to-user-scrutiny-7b777a1b.md","json":"/readings/how-llm-answer-cues-relate-to-user-scrutiny-7b777a1b.json"},"attribution":"Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.","maintainedGuideLinks":[],"readerContext":{"version":"reader-context-v1","attribution":"Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.","terms":[{"id":"term-llm","name":"Large language model","explanation":"A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.","referenceUrl":"https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#large-language-model"},{"id":"term-chain-of-thought","name":"Chain of thought","explanation":"The step-by-step working a model writes out before giving its final answer.","referenceUrl":"https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#chain-of-thought-prompting"}],"entities":[{"id":"arxiv","name":"arXiv","kind":"organization","context":"arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.","referenceUrls":["https://arxiv.org/","https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html"],"path":"/entities/arxiv","json":"/entities/arxiv.json","markdown":"/entities/arxiv.md"}]},"researchQuestions":[],"withdrawn":false,"references":{"schemaVersion":1,"target":{"type":"reading","id":"7b777a1b29c8e8c7b636edfe622f7933f922978fa28cd98dfa0392be86a2d27a","revision":"201704e3-3413-47ad-87c5-cb5f3b2c84cc","revisionKind":"publication-id","title":"How LLM answer cues relate to user scrutiny","url":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/how-llm-answer-cues-relate-to-user-scrutiny-7b777a1b"},"source":{"type":"source","id":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","revision":"0133ca7eb43705a7160a95666619f2626a34152e0b7aeb782d49f5c4938b9256","revisionKind":"sha256-source-text","title":"Signals, Evidence, and Context: User Scrutiny in Real-World LLM Conversations","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232"},"status":"available","items":[],"next":null,"scope":"Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter."},"revisions":[{"id":"7b777a1b29c8e8c7b636edfe622f7933f922978fa28cd98dfa0392be86a2d27a","title":"How LLM answer cues relate to user scrutiny","argument":"Ahana Biswas and Yu-Ru Lin study how features of large language model answers relate to users accepting, checking or challenging them, using 489,283 assistant-user response pairs from ShareChat and WildChat. They report a gap between broad attribution language and inspectable support: qualifying responses included broad attribution much more often than explicit URLs. Attribution, uncertainty and other cues generally accompanied both checking and challenging; uncertainty had a small pooled association favoring checking. The pattern varied by conversation type: in Technical Help, uncertainty favored checking relative to challenging, while in Seeking Information, refusals and reasoning traces favored challenging. The authors also report that scrutiny is concentrated in some conversations, but apparent turn-to-turn persistence shrinks when conversation-level differences and response ordering are examined separately. Their argument is that supporting verification takes more than signaling that an answer is grounded: the evidence must be inspectable, and the question being resolved and interaction history matter too. The abstract reports associations, not evidence that these answer cues cause users to scrutinize responses.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The evidence supplied is the paper’s abstract; it does not give the full methods or explain how qualifying responses and conversation types were defined. The abstract describes associations and does not establish that answer cues cause users to check or challenge responses.","speaker":{"name":"Biswas, Ahana, Lin, Yu-Ru","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"Signals, Evidence, and Context: User Scrutiny in Real-World LLM Conversations","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","publishedAt":"2026-11-05","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"Biswas and Lin examine associations between answer features and users’ accepting, checking or challenging in 489,283 assistant-user response pairs from ShareChat and WildChat.","excerpt":"We study how features of these answers relate to users' subsequent accepting, checking, and challenging in 489,283 assistant-user response pairs from ShareChat and WildChat.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Broad attribution language is more common than explicit URLs in qualifying responses, which the authors describe as a gap between claims of grounding and inspectable support.","excerpt":"Broad attribution language appears in 31.9% of qualifying responses, compared with explicit URLs in 1.33%, revealing a gap between claims of grounding and preserved inspectable support.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The reported associations vary: uncertainty has a small pooled association favoring checking, with different cue patterns in Technical Help and Seeking Information.","excerpt":"only uncertainty shows a small statistically distinguishable pooled association favoring checking. Within Technical Help, uncertainty favors checking relative to challenging; refusals and reasoning traces favor challenging in Seeking Information.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"Scrutiny is concentrated in some conversations, and apparent turn-to-turn persistence becomes smaller after examining conversation-level differences and response ordering separately.","excerpt":"Scrutiny is concentrated in some conversations, while its apparent turn-to-turn persistence becomes much smaller when conversation-level differences and response ordering are examined separately.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors argue that supporting verification requires attention to inspectable evidence, the user’s question and interaction history.","excerpt":"These results suggest that supporting verification requires attention to what evidence can be inspected, which question a user is trying to resolve, and the history of the interaction.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T04:04:08.368Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"How do the authors determine whether users’ checking or challenging reflects answer cues rather than differences between conversations and response order?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"How LLM answer cues relate to user scrutiny","summary":"Ahana Biswas and Yu-Ru Lin study how features of large language model answers relate to users accepting, checking or challenging them, using 489,283 assistant-user response pairs from ShareChat and WildChat. They report a gap between broad attribution language and inspectable support: qualifying responses included broad attribution much more often than explicit URLs. Attribution, uncertainty and other cues generally accompanied both checking and challenging; uncertainty had a small pooled association favoring checking. The pattern varied by conversation type: in Technical Help, uncertainty favored checking relative to challenging, while in Seeking Information, refusals and reasoning traces favored challenging. The authors also report that scrutiny is concentrated in some conversations, but apparent turn-to-turn persistence shrinks when conversation-level differences and response ordering are examined separately. Their argument is that supporting verification takes more than signaling that an answer is grounded: the evidence must be inspectable, and the question being resolved and interaction history matter too. The abstract reports associations, not evidence that these answer cues cause users to scrutinize responses.","question":"How do the authors determine whether users’ checking or challenging reflects answer cues rather than differences between conversations and response order?","claims":[{"text":"Biswas and Lin examine associations between answer features and users’ accepting, checking or challenging in 489,283 assistant-user response pairs from ShareChat and WildChat.","excerpt":"We study how features of these answers relate to users' subsequent accepting, checking, and challenging in 489,283 assistant-user response pairs from ShareChat and WildChat.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Broad attribution language is more common than explicit URLs in qualifying responses, which the authors describe as a gap between claims of grounding and inspectable support.","excerpt":"Broad attribution language appears in 31.9% of qualifying responses, compared with explicit URLs in 1.33%, revealing a gap between claims of grounding and preserved inspectable support.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The reported associations vary: uncertainty has a small pooled association favoring checking, with different cue patterns in Technical Help and Seeking Information.","excerpt":"only uncertainty shows a small statistically distinguishable pooled association favoring checking. Within Technical Help, uncertainty favors checking relative to challenging; refusals and reasoning traces favor challenging in Seeking Information.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"Scrutiny is concentrated in some conversations, and apparent turn-to-turn persistence becomes smaller after examining conversation-level differences and response ordering separately.","excerpt":"Scrutiny is concentrated in some conversations, while its apparent turn-to-turn persistence becomes much smaller when conversation-level differences and response ordering are examined separately.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors argue that supporting verification requires attention to inspectable evidence, the user’s question and interaction history.","excerpt":"These results suggest that supporting verification requires attention to what evidence can be inspected, which question a user is trying to resolve, and the history of the interaction.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The evidence supplied is the paper’s abstract; it does not give the full methods or explain how qualifying responses and conversation types were defined.","The abstract describes associations and does not establish that answer cues cause users to check or challenge responses."],"mediaId":"7fd65ba2c730de2fabf32d17880a7dcfbe5047b91d828b5056282e6618d581bb","correctionReason":null,"id":"7b777a1b29c8e8c7b636edfe622f7933f922978fa28cd98dfa0392be86a2d27a","publicationId":"201704e3-3413-47ad-87c5-cb5f3b2c84cc","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","sourceTitle":"Signals, Evidence, and Context: User Scrutiny in Real-World LLM Conversations","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2026-11-05","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-06T05:12:39.687Z","createdAt":"2026-11-09T03:01:21.028Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"7fd65ba2c730de2fabf32d17880a7dcfbe5047b91d828b5056282e6618d581bb","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T02:55:15.796Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","checkedAt":"2026-11-09T04:04:08.368Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["useful_perspective"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v5","mediaId":"7fd65ba2c730de2fabf32d17880a7dcfbe5047b91d828b5056282e6618d581bb","confidence":0.73,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"ea3e7c9279d63ecf5e74834979a33c71547a00983645e21c231540dfc47c9013","decidedAt":"2026-11-09T02:55:16.543Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"0133ca7eb43705a7160a95666619f2626a34152e0b7aeb782d49f5c4938b9256","observationId":"f1b070940d9820d84c32ec7a9903a41f68dd3a1d0c4db6ad1fe2f7660e724334","retrievedAt":"2026-11-09T02:55:15.689Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"6a147823-e67d-48f6-8786-c1dce89dc78e"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"2e698c6a-adb8-46c4-8495-51255b09a8e8"}},"audit":{"status":"passed","reviewedAt":"2026-11-09T03:01:21.028Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Biswas, Ahana","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Lin, Yu-Ru","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Biswas, Ahana","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Biswas, Ahana","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"18b824b49342450700ba302944c9050d0acfa2408fe3b7ebc2a809deb90a6657:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-09T04:04:08.368Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"18b824b49342450700ba302944c9050d0acfa2408fe3b7ebc2a809deb90a6657","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","contentSha256":"cfa55ee0a0bb9740b8e1c2eaaaccefa3448d6c9ae334142f9f5e8d8afdf25638","textHash":"0133ca7eb43705a7160a95666619f2626a34152e0b7aeb782d49f5c4938b9256","observedAt":"2026-11-09T04:04:08.368Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Lin, Yu-Ru","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Lin, Yu-Ru","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"18b824b49342450700ba302944c9050d0acfa2408fe3b7ebc2a809deb90a6657:participation:1","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-09T04:04:08.368Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"18b824b49342450700ba302944c9050d0acfa2408fe3b7ebc2a809deb90a6657","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","contentSha256":"cfa55ee0a0bb9740b8e1c2eaaaccefa3448d6c9ae334142f9f5e8d8afdf25638","textHash":"0133ca7eb43705a7160a95666619f2626a34152e0b7aeb782d49f5c4938b9256","observedAt":"2026-11-09T04:04:08.368Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":2,"returned":2,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.08232","snapshotId":"18b824b49342450700ba302944c9050d0acfa2408fe3b7ebc2a809deb90a6657","contentSha256":"cfa55ee0a0bb9740b8e1c2eaaaccefa3448d6c9ae334142f9f5e8d8afdf25638","textHash":"0133ca7eb43705a7160a95666619f2626a34152e0b7aeb782d49f5c4938b9256","observedAt":"2026-11-09T04:04:08.368Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":40,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/7b777a1b29c8e8c7b636edfe622f7933f922978fa28cd98dfa0392be86a2d27a/source"}}}],"audits":[{"publicationId":"201704e3-3413-47ad-87c5-cb5f3b2c84cc","verdict":"passed","findings":[{"dimension":"attribution","status":"pass","explanation":"The reading correctly credits the study to Ahana Biswas and Yu-Ru Lin and attributes its findings and its verification argument to them.","excerpt":"Authors:Ahana Biswas, Yu-Ru Lin"},{"dimension":"summary","status":"pass","explanation":"The summary faithfully covers the abstract: the data, the gap between attribution language and URLs, the cue associations, the category differences, the scrutiny concentration finding, and the authors' conclusion. The title and question follow from the evidence. A general reader can grasp the central point. Terms such as pooled association, reasoning traces, and ShareChat/WildChat (datasets of real-world chats) would benefit from term-library tooltips, but they do not block understanding.","excerpt":"These results suggest that supporting verification requires attention to what evidence can be inspected, which question a user is trying to resolve, and the history of the interaction."},{"dimension":"date","status":"pass","explanation":"The originalPublished date of 2026-11-05 matches the arXiv v1 submission date. The feed date of Nov 6 is correctly not used.","excerpt":"[Submitted on 5 Nov 2026]"},{"dimension":"support","status":"pass","explanation":"Each claim matches its exact excerpt. 'Much more often' is supported by 31.9% versus 1.33%. The note that the findings are associations rather than causes matches the abstract's association framing. No benefits, costs, or outcomes are invented.","excerpt":"Broad attribution language appears in 31.9% of qualifying responses, compared with explicit URLs in 1.33%"},{"dimension":"media","status":"pass","explanation":"The selected media is the verified direct arXiv abstract page for this paper. It is the most direct route to the source.","excerpt":null}],"createdAt":"2026-11-09T03:01:21.028Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"}],"correctionUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/"}