Evidence-Ledger Adjudication for Claim-Evidence Traceability

Misalignment between claims and their cited evidence is a common failure mode in reports generated by large language models, limiting their reliability in scientific and other high-stakes settings. We present DeepSciVerify, a two-stage pipeline for scientific claim-citation verification that combines abstract-level reasoning with selective escalation to passage-level evidence. The system first verifies claims using the abstract and defers uncertain cases, retrieving and analyzing full-text passages only when necessary. This design leverages complementary behaviors across LLMs, as some models are more conservative while others are more decisive under uncertainty. On the SCitance benchmark, DeepSciVerify achieves 86.7 Micro-F1, outperforming strong abstract-only baselines by +4.5 points while resolving 67% of instances without full-text retrieval. These results suggest that selective evidence escalation improves both accuracy and efficiency in claim-citation verification.

AI-assisted research has entered a stage in which the central question is not only whether systems can generate hypotheses, run experiments, or produce manuscripts, but whether their scientific claims are calibrated to the evidence that supports them. This Perspective-style paper develops a conceptual and methodological framework for evidence-licensed claims in AI-assisted research. Motivated by representative routes including specialized scientific foundation models, LLM research assistants, multi-agent co-scientists, AI Scientist pipelines, mathematical discovery agents, and self-driving laboratories, it represents AI-assisted research as five operators: hypothesis generation, model-mediated consequence derivation, external validation, belief update, and claim calibration. The central claim is that calibration is not merely cautious wording but a mechanism for managing scientific assertion rights: evidence licenses some forms of speech and withholds others. The paper distinguishes linguistic, consequence-based, interventional, and evidence-licensed semantics; defines the claim-evidence gap and epistemic debt; and treats minimal structural reconstruction across heterogeneous outputs as an upward form of claim calibration. AISim-Cal is included as an illustrative synthetic dynamics exercise, not as an empirical forecast or benchmark. The resulting principles are: no claim without license, validation does not determine claim level, and automation amplifies the need for calibration. Reliable AI-assisted research is therefore evaluated as a loop that generates hypotheses, derives testable consequences, accepts independent adjudication, updates beliefs, and outputs only evidence-licensed claims.

AI-assisted claims can appear authoritative when evidence, analysis, human authorization, presentation, and correction history refer to different states. Provenance, attestation, and transparency expose history but alone do not specify the publication transition examined here. We develop Publication Authority as an exact-state, non-transferable, single-use publication capability and instantiate it in PAC-2026 (Publication-Accountability Calculus), a machine-readable AIJIM Protocol candidate. We evaluate its fourth bounded semantic freeze (SF-4), a fixed-profile specification designed for replaceable bindings. Six obligations govern evidence, runs and artifacts, measurement disclosure, authorization, surface correspondence, and lifecycle continuity. Each yields a target-bound witness, localized counterexample, or localized unverifiability; none can compensate for another. Only a fresh, complete all-pass record derives the permit consumed by one atomic publication transition. We use identity vectors, adversarial cases, finite models, and historical implementations. Ten models explored 110,764 safe reachable states; 76 unsafe configurations produced the expected violation or observer countermodel. A reader surface passing its correspondence check cannot authorize publication unless the accepted record admits that surface. SF-4 separates evidence horizon from verification time and rejects an authentic but causally invalid authorization. A historical predecessor path reproduced 17 frozen authorization-successor outcomes. A later in-house, instance-blind test of known case classes matched all 183 scored expectations; same-host package execution reproduced its 240 archived observations. Results support internal coherence, bounded safety, fault sensitivity, and limited constructibility, but not factual truth, general refinement, blind interoperability, field efficacy, or standards status.