A Verification Workflow You Can Run

Four Checks, In Order

Verification is four distinct questions and they must be answered in sequence, because each is meaningless if the previous one fails. First: does this authority exist? Look it up in a primary source or an established database — not by asking the model, which will confirm anything. Second: is the citation itself correct? Party names, court, year, reporter and paragraph or page. A real case cited wrongly is still a defect. Third: does it say what is claimed? Read the relevant passage in the judgment, not a headnote and not the tool's summary. Fourth: is it still good law? Check subsequent treatment for overruling, distinguishing, or statutory supersession. Skipping any step leaves a specific, known category of error uncaught.

• Exists — confirm in a primary source or established database, never by asking the model
• Correct — party names, court, year, and pinpoint reference all verified against the source
• Supports — read the actual passage; headnotes and generated summaries are not verification
• Current — check subsequent treatment for overruling, distinguishing, or supersession

Making the Workflow Survive a Deadline

Any check that competes with a filing deadline loses unless it has been made cheap and unavoidable. Practical measures: verify continuously as you draft rather than in one pass at the end, when there is no time left. Keep a verification table alongside the draft with a row per citation and a tick per check, so the state is visible at a glance and an unfinished row is obvious. Make the completed table a filing precondition with a named signer. Apply it to every draft regardless of origin, including client-supplied and contractor-supplied text, since a fabricated citation carries the same consequence whoever typed it. And never let the model verify its own output — asked to confirm, it will produce confirmation.

• Verify as you draft, not in a final pass that will collide with the deadline
• Maintain a per-citation table with a tick per check so incompleteness is visible
• Make the signed table a filing precondition with a named person attesting
• Apply it to every draft regardless of author — client and contractor text included

Where the Workflow Still Leaves Gaps

Even a disciplined workflow has residual exposure worth naming. Verification confirms that cited authority exists, is accurately described, and remains good — it says nothing about the authority you never found. A model can steer research toward a plausible but incomplete line of argument, and no per-citation check surfaces the case that should have been cited and was not. Currency checking depends on the coverage and update cadence of whatever service you use. And on a long document under pressure, sustained attention across a hundred citations is a genuine constraint. Verification is a necessary control, not a complete one, and knowing its edges is part of using it honestly.

• Verification says nothing about authority you never found — omission is the residual risk
• AI-shaped research can narrow the argument in ways per-citation checking cannot detect
• Currency checks inherit the coverage and update cadence of the service performing them
• Sustained attention across many citations is a real limit — split long documents between checkers

Try It Yourself

The four checks are easy to describe and easy to skip. Run them once, in full, on a document that already exists.

Citation:
Exists (opened in a primary source or database): yes / no
Citation details correct — parties, court, year, pinpoint: yes / no
Supports the proposition as stated: yes / no
Still good law, subsequent treatment checked: yes / no
Checked by:            Date: