Long-form research reports generated by large language models drift, contradict themselves, and lose provenance: the same metric appears with different values, and rumor is quoted as confidently as an audited filing. We present a two-tier agentic system that separates a maintained, point-in-time knowledge library from report writing. A deterministic "librarian" ingests timestamped sources into a trust-tiered ontology, layering evidence cards, an authoritative metric ledger, and a claim graph into an always-current source of truth, not per-query RAG over raw chunks. A portable multi-agent "writer" runtime then composes a contradiction-free, evidence-grounded report at any knowledge cutoff T, reading only evidence with as_of <= T (no look-ahead); red-team verdicts flow back into the librarian. We evaluate on a self-collected, public corpus of 6,130 sources yielding 555,926 evidence cards (SEC EDGAR filings across 295 issuers and 11 sectors, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics releases, and Wikipedia). From the one library we compose four point-in-time reports on distinct theses and run eight reproducible experiments, whose headline metrics come from a deterministic quality-control gate, itself validated by defect-injection meta-evaluation at recall 1.0 and precision 1.0. A shared metric ledger removes 6,845 cross-section contradictions to zero. Tier-first selection is correct on 22/22 gold cases where a popularity-first baseline scores only 9/22; trust tiering leaks zero media-sourced numbers, and no government statistic displaces a company's own filing. A red-team refutation propagates back and self-corrects a later run with zero manual edits. Replay exhibits zero look-ahead violations across seven cutoffs while the library grows from 235,373 to 555,312 cards. Difficulty-tiered model routing exceeds the all-Opus quality ceiling while running 3.7x faster than serial.
Research artifacts are distributed primarily as reader-oriented documents like PDFs. This creates a bottleneck for increasingly agent-assisted and agent-native research workflows, in which LLM agents need to infer fine-grained, task-relevant information from lengthy full documents, a process that is expensive, repetitive, and unstable at scale. We introduce Knows, a lightweight companion specification that binds structured claims, evidence, provenance, and verifiable relations to existing research artifacts in a form LLM agents can consume directly. Knows addresses the gap with a thin YAML sidecar (KnowsRecord) that coexists with the original PDF, requiring no changes to the publication itself, and validated by a deterministic schema linter. We evaluate Knows on 140 comprehension questions across 20 papers spanning 14 academic disciplines, comparing PDF-only, sidecar-only, and hybrid conditions across six LLM agents of varying capacity. Weak models (0.8B--2B parameters) improve from 19--25% to 47--67% accuracy (+29 to +42 percentage points) when reading sidecar instead of PDF, while consuming 29--86% fewer input tokens; an LLM-as-judge re-scoring confirms that weak-model sidecar accuracy (75--77%) approaches stronger-model PDF accuracy (78--83%). Beyond this controlled evaluation, a community sidecar hub at https://knows.academy/ has already indexed over ten thousand publications and continues to grow daily, providing independent evidence that the format is adoption-ready at scale.
Deep research agents increasingly operate over the open web, where relevant records coexist with redundant summaries, outdated reports, and misleading documents. Existing evaluations offer limited insight into whether agents preserve sound evidential standards when an ordinary-looking false document is deliberately seeded into a searchable environment and offers a direct shortcut to a conflicting answer. We introduce DRNOISE, a 100-task benchmark for answer recovery under misleading evidence. Each task has a unique gold answer supported by two corroborating indirect record chains; the paired noisy condition adds one plausible document that states a conflicting answer directly. The benchmark spans ten families of evidence operations. Across agents with strong clean-task performance, this single intervention causes 66-88 percentage-point accuracy drops. Trace analyses identify verification inertia as the dominant failure mode: agents often retrieve truthful records but stop before completing and reconciling the evidence chain, instead deferring to the answer-like document. Generic verification prompts reduce but do not close this gap. The setting is especially relevant to open-web deployment, where plausible falsehoods arrive through ordinary-looking pages rather than explicit attacks. Reliable deep research therefore requires more than retrieval and citation; it requires active reconciliation of direct claims with record-level evidence.
AI agents can draft claims faster than authors can check whether the cited or retrieved evidence supports them. We study evidence-ledger adjudication: a claim-evidence traceability workflow that pairs each claim with an evidence packet, assigns a support relation, and routes unsupported, contradicted, or mixed-evidence claims back to the author. The empirical core is a 2,335-row blind benchmark built from independent external labels in AVeriTeC, CLIMATE-FEVER, and SciFact. Gold relations and source evidence labels are hidden during prediction and joined only for scoring. On this benchmark, the agent evidence-ledger condition achieves 0.676 relation accuracy and 0.601 macro-F1, compared with 0.383 accuracy and 0.303 macro-F1 for the best non-agent baseline. It also routes 1270/1435 claims whose gold labels indicate contradiction, missing evidence, or mixed evidence, while routing 295/900 supported claims. These results show that evidence-ledger adjudication can turn heterogeneous evidence packets into an auditable traceability layer for AI-assisted writing.