Provenance and accuracy
Research outputs carry their sources, and every step of the trail can be inspected, across the whole product.
The trail, by output
| Output | Its trail |
|---|---|
| Literature answers | Citations to the papers, through Lacuna's typed links back to the originals |
| Generated documents | Every figure and table links to its exact location in the source PDF |
| Code claims | The sandboxed run itself; files, line numbers, outputs |
| Network answers | Arrive in your conversation with their context attached, from a verified researcher |
The paper audits its own claims
Appendix A of the Lacuna preprint is a per-claim audit table: each extracted claim, paired with the evidence that supports it. The statuses include "Supported," "Supported (limitation)," and, in one row, "False (useful failure case)."
On being wrong
Systems built on language models can be wrong, this one included. The design response is inspectability everywhere, plus measurement in public. We benchmark our own stack in a preprint (arXiv:2606.26246 (opens in new tab)), and the numbers include the unflattering ones: on survey-grade citation, the best F1 in the test, Lacuna's own, is 0.052 against GPT-Researcher's 0.039. Better than the alternative and nowhere near solved, and published anyway. That is the standard this product wants to be held to.
Your part
Click the sources. Follow a figure to its page. Ask Althea to show its trail when one is not visible, and treat a missing trail as information.