Workflow-specific products Content, decks, briefs, proposals, legal, and sales each have a clearer buying path.

Review before delivery Draft, edit, collaborate, approve, and export in the same workspace.

Security + procurement path Security policy, support, and Azure Marketplace buying are public.

Microsoft AI Partner Azure Marketplace G2 Trustpilot

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.

Start a Business brief Compare Business plans

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.

Gixo Business brief workspace. A polished document still requires review of its claims and source material.

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

Choose the brief recipe and the decision it supports. 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 recipe 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.

Evidence checks and their limits in Gixo Business
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 and lists of the draft, not its tables, with the numbers in those sources, and rewrites any sentence whose figure it cannot find there, substituting the source value or dropping the claim. 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, the Evidence tab under Checks in the brief editor lists up to five sentences 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), cannot see web research, so for a brief with web research turned on the list is advisory, and 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.

Business workflows Business user guide Current plans

Updated 22 September 2026