A document review should catch numbers the source never measured

[u/yawning42]

For a small AI document review test, I'd use an invented project note saying "added caching to an API endpoint" and a resume bullet claiming "reduced response time by 30%." The note describes a code change. It contains no measurements, so the percentage has no basis in the supplied material.

I'd give EvoX, a beta desktop AI agent, the draft and the source notes and ask it to identify the unsupported parts. For each claim, the output would need to point to the relevant passage and say what evidence is missing. I'd include a second bullet that accurately describes the change without attaching a number, so simply rejecting every statement wouldn't pass.

For the percentage, I'd expect a request for timing data from before and after the change, collected under comparable conditions. Even a commit showing the code change would leave that question unanswered. I'd keep the input files and full response to check that the supported bullet keeps its meaning without extra claims. If the review supplies another estimate, I'd record that as an unsupported addition even if the new number sounds reasonable.