Cite check

Paper Citation and Claims Verifier

Use when auditing a paper draft for numerical accuracy, stale references, and unsubstantiated claims. Traces every number and assertion back to actual result files on disk.

Trigger: When user types /cite-check with an optional file path.

Iron Law

NO NUMBER IN THE PAPER WITHOUT A TRACEABLE DATA SOURCE

Arguments

• $ARGUMENTS — optional: path to paper draft file. Defaults to docs/paper_draft.md.

Anti-Rationalization Table

Excuse	Reality
"The numbers are approximately right"	Reviewers check exact numbers. "Approximately" gets your paper rejected
"I'll update the numbers before submission"	Stale numbers propagate — every draft review builds intuition on wrong data
"Only the final version matters"	SC papers are reviewed once. There is no "fix it later" after submission
"The trend is correct even if the number is off"	A wrong number undermines trust in every other number in the paper

Red Flags — STOP and Escalate

• A percentage or count in the paper that does not match any result file on disk
• A reference to a model that has been dropped from the campaign (e.g., azure-gpt-4.1)
• A table or figure referenced in text that does not exist in the draft
• A claim about "all models" or "all kernels" that actually excludes some
• A speedup ratio cited from wall-clock timing (known to be unreliable — see known-issues.md)

If any red flag triggers: mark the claim as FAIL in the report and include the exact discrepancy (paper says X, data shows Y).

Flag Categories

Claims are checked against 5 categories:

Category	What it catches
UNTRACED	Claims with numbers but no backing data file on disk
MISMATCH	Numbers that conflict with current result files (paper says 34%, data shows 22%)
STALE_REF	References to dropped models, old spec counts, or superseded results
MISSING_CITE	Related work claims without citations, or methodology claims without spec references
PHANTOM	Figures, tables, or sections referenced in text but not present in the draft

Project Context

• Paper draft: docs/paper_draft.md (default) or user-specified path
• Result directories: results/evaluation/*/ — organized by model/configuration
• Analysis outputs: analysis/ — computed tables, figures, reports
• Check CLAUDE.md for canonical directory structure and known caveats
• Check .claude/rules/known-issues.md for exclusions and known failures
• If CHANGELOG.research.md exists, read it before verifying — it documents which results are current

Workflow

Phase 1: Load Draft

1. Read the paper draft file from $ARGUMENTS or default path
2. If the file does not exist, report error and stop
3. Parse the draft into sections (by ## headers)

Verification gate: File must be readable and non-empty. If empty, STOP.

Phase 2: Extract Claims

Scan the entire draft for checkable claims. A "claim" is any of:

• A sentence containing a number (percentage, count, ratio)
• A sentence referencing a table or figure ("Table 1", "Figure 3")
• A sentence making a comparative assertion ("X outperforms Y", "all models fail on Z")
• A sentence citing a specific model name, kernel name, or API
• A sentence citing related work without a bibliographic reference

Build a claims list with: claim text, section, line number (approximate), category.

Verification gate: At least 1 claim must be extracted. If the draft has zero checkable claims, something is wrong — report and stop.

Phase 3: Verify Each Claim

For each claim, perform category-specific verification:

Numerical claims (counts, percentages, pass rates):

1. Identify which result files should contain the backing data
2. READ the actual result files — count PASS/FAIL/BUILD_FAIL/etc.
3. Compare the computed number to the paper's number
4. Verdict: PASS (matches), FAIL (mismatch — report both values), WARN (close but not exact)

Model references:

1. Check the model name against known active models
2. If the paper references azure-gpt-4.1 or any dropped model: STALE_REF
3. Check that claims about specific models match their actual result files

Table/figure references:

1. Search the draft for the referenced table or figure
2. If not found: PHANTOM
3. If found: verify the data in the table matches result files (same as numerical claims)

Related work citations:

1. Check if the claim cites a specific paper or system
2. If the claim makes a comparison ("unlike X, we...") without citing X: MISSING_CITE

Domain-specific claims:

1. Verify named entities (modules, components, datasets) exist in the project
2. Verify capability claims match actual implementation or spec files
3. Cross-check any per-entity results against actual result files

Verification gate: Every claim must receive a verdict. No claim is skipped.

Phase 4: Generate Report

Present findings in structured format:

=== CITE-CHECK REPORT ===
File: <path to draft>
Claims checked: <N>
  PASS:       <N> — backed by data, numbers match
  WARN:       <N> — minor discrepancies or approximate matches
  FAIL:       <N> — data mismatch or missing source
  STALE_REF:  <N> — references to dropped/outdated data
  MISSING_CITE: <N> — assertions without citations
  PHANTOM:    <N> — referenced figures/tables not found

--- FAILURES (must fix before submission) ---

[F1] Section: <section>, Line ~<N>
  Claim: "<exact text>"
  Issue: MISMATCH — paper says 34%, results/evaluation/ shows 22.44%
  Data source: <file path> or "NO FILE FOUND"
  Fix: <suggested correction>

[F2] ...

--- WARNINGS (review before submission) ---

[W1] Section: <section>, Line ~<N>
  Claim: "<exact text>"
  Issue: <description>

--- STALE REFERENCES ---

[S1] ...

=== END REPORT ===

Sort by severity: FAIL first, then STALE_REF, then WARN, then MISSING_CITE, then PHANTOM.

Verification gate: The report must list every extracted claim with a verdict. If any claim lacks a verdict, the check is incomplete — report it as such.