Frame the decision
Name the audience, requested decision and source pack. Review imported tables and extracted text; record gaps instead of allowing a polished narrative to conceal them.
Evidence-Bound Writing — Keep Source Review Connected to the Draft
Write a business brief from supplied evidence, then examine the claims that need review. Gixo connects source-file references, number reconciliation and an Evidence tab; it does not turn a draft into independently verified facts.
Compare Business plansBusiness · real output
Keep the recommendation connected to its inputs.
Inspect an actual Business report. A readable decision brief needs the question, supplied evidence, options, assumptions and next decision—not just a shorter source document.
First Steps to Protect Customer Personal Information: A Case Report for a Small Business Owner
A decision, options compared on stated criteria, risks and a roadmap, with statements in the analysis labelled Fact, Inference or Assumption. The decision, lists and some summary sentences carry no label.
Inspect the source brief or data
Business question: Which actions should a small business that stores customer personal information take first to protect it and to be ready if it is exposed? Decision maker: The owner of a small business. Timeframe: The next quarter. Context: A small business collects customer personal information and keeps it in paper files and on computers. It has no dedicated security staff. Refer to it as 'the business' throughout and do not give it a name. Options: Take stock of the personal information it keeps and where it is stored; Reduce what it keeps to what the business needs; Lock down the information it keeps with practical safeguards; Prepare a plan for responding to a data breach. Criteria: How much personal information at risk it removes or protects; How realistic it is for a small team without security specialists; How well it limits the harm if information is exposed. Constraints: No dedicated security staff; Limited time and budget.
Read the sample review notes
Open the full export and compare its statements with the cited sources before reuse.
Inspect the analysis
Separate supplied facts, calculated values, assumptions and recommendations. For variance work, reconcile the period, unit, baseline and actual value before interpreting the direction of a difference.
Make the handoff usable
Use options, trade-offs, risks and named next actions. Review the final artifact and, when using Analyst calculations, inspect the calculation evidence separately from the narrative.
Source packs, conflicts and review decisions
Select source documents, case context, working notes, assumptions, options and decision constraints before generation. Inspect claims, metrics, exact quotations, source tables and conflicting figures. Review decisions are scoped to the source or artifact and can become stale after evidence changes; unresolved evidence should stay visible.
Calculation evidence and scenario comparison
Keep investment, recurring costs, benefits, delays, growth, discount assumptions and scenario probabilities explicit. Inspect deterministic cash flow and the available return, payback and sensitivity outputs. Compare scenarios before selection, and inspect the formula workbook or calculation receipt separately from the narrative recommendation.
Analyst, repeat periods and execution
Inspect the dossier's source tables, working rows and columns, calculation ledger and workbook handoff. Metric packs retain reviewable calculation and source context. Preview source replacements for a new period before accepting them. Execution records distinguish an action owner, baseline, target, measured value, data source and the reason for a status change.
A calculation can be replayable while the supplied inputs remain wrong. A generated report is decision support, not independent diligence, audit assurance or investment advice.
Evidence-bound writing means keeping the source material and the claims made from it reviewable together. In Gixo Business, uploaded text can support numbered references in evidence-oriented briefs. A separate check compares draft claims with selected source passages and reports review findings in the editor. Traceability depends on the retained citation and source; fluent wording alone is not evidence.
Additional product example
What to supply before generation
Start with evidence you can inspect
Upload the original report, notes, spreadsheet or document behind the intended claims. Give each file a meaningful name and specify its reporting period. A short summary of a source is not equivalent to the full source.
Set the purpose and sourcing mode
Describe the business question and intended audience, add the sources you want to use, and review the proposed outline and missing evidence before generating. If web research is enabled, distinguish that external context from the uploaded-file evidence. Do not assume numbered file markers also cover web discoveries.
Review the meaning, not just the marker
A cited sentence can still overstate its source. Check whether the passage supports the actual claim, whether figures share the same unit and period, and whether an inference has been presented as an observation.
What to expect and how to review it
Numbered uploaded-file references
Where the reviewed plan and evidence policy requests citations, the writing model places markers such as [1] and [2]. The source-file list helps locate evidence; missing markers still need to be corrected by the author.
A bounded review aid
The Evidence tab identifies sentences that could not be matched and missing citations. It reads selected passages and exact figures rather than understanding every source in full. Your edits are not automatically rechecked, and its findings do not become annotations in the exported document.
A finished document with explicit uncertainty
Keep assumptions, conflicting data and unresolved questions in the brief. Add the missing citation or qualify the claim before exporting. Do not hide an open question by replacing it with more confident prose.
What the evidence workflow can and cannot establish
The useful question is not whether a draft looks sourced. It is whether a reviewer can trace each important claim to the right material and see what remains unresolved.
| Review area | What Business can surface | What the reviewer still decides |
|---|---|---|
| Uploaded citations | References to selected source files and passages | Whether the passage actually supports the sentence as written |
| Numbers | Conflicting figures, units, or reporting periods to inspect | Which figure is authoritative and whether the comparison is valid |
| Web research | Separate provenance for enabled external research | Whether the source is current, credible, and applicable to the decision |
| Export | A reviewable brief with open questions retained | Final approval, edits, and the decision to publish or share |
From a source sentence to a reviewed claim
Illustrative source: A supplied pilot report says: “18 of 24 invited teams completed the four-week pilot. No commercial renewal decision has been made.”
Draft sentence to inspect: “18 teams completed the pilot [1], demonstrating strong renewal demand.” The marker can lead to the report, but the report does not support the renewal conclusion. Keep the observed completion count; replace the unsupported inference with “Renewal intent remains untested.”
In Checks → Evidence: Inspect the claim-matching and citation findings, open the source, and edit the sentence in the brief. A missing-marker finding does not insert a reference for you. Even a matched sentence needs review of its meaning. This is a worked review example with invented data, not a customer result or a claim that this exact draft was generated.
See the Business editor and Evidence workflow · Review the product and plan boundaries
Questions to settle before you use the output
How do uploaded-file citations differ from web-source provenance?
Numbered inline markers refer to uploaded source files for citation-enabled briefs. Web research, when enabled, can inform the draft and its provenance is stored separately; those results are not included in the uploaded-source matching pack. Check both the uploaded evidence and the original web pages before relying on their claims.
How are citations to my uploaded files created?
Upload source files and Gixo writes the brief to cite the claims and figures it takes from them, with numbered markers such as [1] and [2] and a Sources section listing those files. The writing model places the markers, so a sentence can go uncited: the Evidence tab in the brief editor lists up to five sentences that have none, for you to check, and adds nothing to the brief itself. A brief written without uploaded files has nothing to cite. Marketing and customer-facing formats such as social posts, press notes and email campaigns are written from your files without visible citations.
What do number checks and the Evidence tab actually establish?
Where a brief has sources - files you upload or connect, pages you add, or the search results web research drew on - a repair stage compares the figures in the paragraphs, lists and table body cells of the draft with the numbers in those sources, and rewrites any sentence or cell whose figure it cannot find there, substituting the source value or dropping the claim. A table heading or row label is read as context, not as a figure, and a total, difference or share the table works out from its own cells is never rewritten. That is reconciliation against your own sources, not an independent fact-check, and it is silent: nothing is marked up in the delivered brief, and a sentence it cannot repair, or a draft it cannot finish, keeps its original figures. For a brief written from sources you upload or from the search results web research drew on, the Evidence tab under Checks in the brief editor lists up to five sentences or table cells whose wording or figures it could not match to those sources, for you to check. It matches wording and exact figures, not meaning: a faithful paraphrase, or $8.1M where the source says 8,100,000, can fail to match while being true, so an unmatched sentence is a place to look, not an error, and a matched one is not confirmed either, because this is a comparison with your own sources, not a fact-check. It reads only part of a long source (24 passages of up to 1,600 characters) and at most 12 sources, files first. Of web research it reads the title and snippet of each search result, not the page, so a figure taken from the page alone does not match, and if it could not read every result the list is advisory. It reads a table cell with its row and column, and a total the table works out from its own cells passes when the arithmetic holds. It checks the draft as generated, not your later edits. Treat every figure as needing review until you have confirmed it at the source.
How are regulatory references handled?
In the optional Rules or standards panel you can name the jurisdiction, the laws or standards, and specific references such as GDPR Article 30, one per line. The brief is shaped around them, for structure and required disclosures, and ends with a Regulatory / Normative References appendix listing what you named. Gixo does not look clauses up or map requirements to them for you, and the appendix is not a source for factual claims in the brief.
Does a passed check remove the need for review?
The source forecast and verification gate are review aids, not independent fact-checking. Reviewers must confirm important claims, figures, assumptions, and recommendations against authoritative sources.
More from Gixo