The method: how the receipt gets made.

Search first, judge second. The engine never decides whether a claim is true from memory; it retrieves real papers and reasons over what it actually found.

The pipeline, in plain English
  1. Your claim becomes several search queries, aimed both FOR and AGAINST it.
  2. We retrieve real papers from open academic databases (with citation counts, and retracted papers thrown out).
  3. The model sorts what was found into supporting and contradicting evidence and calls the balance: SUPPORTED, CONTESTED, REFUTED, or INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.
  4. A deterministic score (not the model's opinion) computes confidence from source agreement, citation strength, replication, and counter-evidence.
  5. Quotes are only shown when they exist verbatim in the retrieved text. A missing quote never blocks a citation; a fabricated one is the single unforgivable failure.
The receipts correct themselves
Every receipt keeps an append-only history. If a cited paper is later retracted, a nightly scan catches it, downgrades the verdict, and logs the correction publicly. Anyone can challenge any receipt, but only with a source; opinions don't move verdicts, papers do. 0 claims are on the record so far.
Published accuracy →
We run a labeled evaluation suite (false-attribution rate, recall, quote fidelity, verdict accuracy) before every release, and we publish the numbers here; including the imperfect ones. Nobody else in this category shows you their accuracy. We think that's exactly the problem.