Why the verification flow is designed this way
SAV is built around a simple design choice: generated language is useful when it shortens the path to a source, not when it asks researchers to trust it in place of the source. That choice shapes how briefs, arguments, evidence links, and review steps fit together in the workspace.
Generated text is a starting point
A short brief can orient a reader; it cannot settle what a paper says. Summaries compress, labels simplify, and synthesis can introduce an interpretation that is not warranted by the underlying study. SAV therefore presents these outputs as drafts to inspect. They can help identify a possible finding, method, limitation, or question worth revisiting, but they are not a substitute for reading the relevant source material.
Evidence belongs beside the claim
Verification is easier when it happens at the moment a claim is being considered. SAV connects generated statements to evidence passages and source context so a reader can compare the wording with the paper rather than rely on memory or a detached summary. The link is not a guarantee that the interpretation is correct. It is an invitation to inspect the wording, the page, and the surrounding discussion before carrying the point forward.
The researcher remains accountable
No interface can decide whether a passage supports a specific argument in a thesis, article, review, or report. That decision depends on context, disciplinary standards, and the purpose of the work. Before using an output, researchers should check the cited passage, its qualifiers, the quality of the extraction, and the original publication. SAV is intended to make that verification loop easier to sustain, not to remove it.