amal66 wants document citations to earn their authority
A closed proposal tackles a legal AI risk that matters more than a polished answer: a quote attributed to a document that is not actually there.
amal66's approach checks document quotations on the server before they reach the user or are saved. It compares each quoted passage with the source document, including quotations that span pages, while leaving existing case-law checks in place.
- Verified: the quotation matches the source exactly.
- Repaired: a near-match is replaced with the source's actual wording.
- Unverified: an unmatched quotation stays visible, but is clearly marked as untrusted.
The proposal also covers fabricated quotes, unreadable documents and slightly drifted wording. It was closed without being merged upstream, so this safeguard is not part of the main Mike product.
So what Small firms and legal teams relying on document-grounded AI should care because citation checking is the difference between useful drafting support and a quote that could mislead a lawyer.
Spotted something wrong? Or know the PR text has fresher detail than the writeup above?