Elicit vs FutureHouse Platform

Agent access

1. ai-native userPoint an agent at llms.txt or agent-oriented docs

   weight 2 · round to Elicit
   Elicit✓fullprobed8/10

   Elicit hosts a live llms.txt at support.elicit.com/llms.txt (HTTP 200, confirmed via probe) listing agent-oriented docs, and it also exposes an official MCP server for agent access, showing genuine agent-oriented documentation infrastructure. missing for 10: no independent/community corroboration of an agent actually consuming llms.txt successfully, and no OpenAPI/agent-doc spec beyond the llms.txt itself.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://support.elicit.com/llms.txt # Elicit Help Center > Help center for Elicit ## Getting Started - [Getti…”
   • [claimed-docs] “claude mcp add --transport http elicit https://elicit.com/api/mcp”
   • [claimed-docs] “All API functionality is also available via MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, enabling use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MC…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform✓fullprobed7/10

   A working llms.txt file is directly confirmed via probe at futurehouse.gitbook.io/llms.txt returning HTTP 200 with structured agent-oriented documentation links, satisfying the core ask of pointing an agent at llms.txt. missing for 10: markdown-per-page fallback (docs-md probe returned 404), no OpenAPI/machine-readable schema confirmation, and no independent third-party corroboration of agents actually consuming this file successfully.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 200 at https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/llms.txt # Edison Scientific Documentation ## Home - [Overview](https://docs.ed…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/futurehouse-cookbook.md # Page Not Found The URL `futurehouse-cookbook` does not …”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/openapi.json, https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/swagger.json, https://fu…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userRun the product headlessly / in CI for automation

   weight 2 · round to FutureHouse Platform
   Elicit~partialclaimed6/10

   Elicit documents an API (and MCP server) explicitly for running its search/report/systematic-review capabilities 'from your own code, scripts, and workflows,' which supports headless/automated use outside the UI. However, there's no explicit CI/pipeline example, and API access appears gated as a paid plan feature rather than a fully documented automation-first workflow. Missing for 10: explicit CI/automation examples or tutorials, rate-limit/auth details for unattended use, and independent confirmation that the API works reliably in automated pipelines.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Elicit API lets you access Elicit's research capabilities programmatically: search 138 million+ academic papers and generate automated r…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Systematic Review: run a full review end to end, with control over search strategy, screening criteria, extraction parameters, and reporting…”
   • [claimed-docs] “API access”
   • [claimed-docs] “All API functionality is also available via MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, enabling use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MC…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform✓fullclaimed7/10

   The Edison client is a pip-installable Python SDK (`edison-client`) authenticated via API key, with a scriptable interface (`client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)`) that requires no UI, making it straightforward to invoke headlessly or from CI pipelines. Missing for 10: explicit CI/automation examples (e.g., GitHub Actions workflow), documentation of exit codes/async polling patterns for pipelines, and independent confirmation of real-world CI usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “uv pip install edison-client”
   • [claimed-docs] “Authentication is done by providing an API key, which can be obtained directly from your profile page in the Edison platform”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_data = { "name": JobNames.LITERATURE, "query": "Which neglected diseases had a treatment developed by artificial intelligence?"…”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_response = client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userConnect an agent via an official MCP server

   weight 3 · round to Elicit
   Elicit✓fullclaimed8/10

   Elicit provides an official documented MCP server endpoint (claude mcp add --transport http elicit https://elicit.com/api/mcp) exposing full API functionality for use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MCP-compatible clients. missing for 10: no independent/hands-on corroboration of the MCP server working, and no detail on auth/tool-list scope beyond the docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “claude mcp add --transport http elicit https://elicit.com/api/mcp”
   • [claimed-docs] “All API functionality is also available via MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, enabling use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MC…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   The evidence pack only shows a Python client (edison-client) for calling FutureHouse agents via API key, plus probes confirming no OpenAPI/MCP-related endpoints were found; there is no mention of an official MCP server for connecting agents.

   • [claimed-docs] “uv pip install edison-client”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/openapi.json, https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/swagger.json, https://fu…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userUse an official CLI

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Elicit—none0/10

   Evidence shows Elicit offers an API and an MCP server for programmatic/agentic access, but there is no mention anywhere of an official command-line interface (CLI) tool. Since API-based products could plausibly ship a CLI, absence of evidence means this axis is unmet rather than inapplicable.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Elicit API lets you access Elicit's research capabilities programmatically: search 138 million+ academic papers and generate automated r…”
   • [claimed-docs] “All API functionality is also available via MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, enabling use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MC…”
   • [claimed-docs] “claude mcp add --transport http elicit https://elicit.com/api/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   Evidence shows only a Python client library (edison-client, installed via pip, used programmatically with client.run_tasks_until_done) rather than a command-line interface; no CLI tool, command syntax, or terminal usage is documented anywhere in the pack.

   • [claimed-docs] “uv pip install edison-client”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_response = client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

5. ai-native userDrive the product through a documented public API

   weight 3 · round to Elicit
   Elicit✓fullprobed8/10

   Elicit documents a public API with keys/auth management and specific programmatic endpoints (search 138M+ papers, automated report generation, full systematic review workflow control), plus an MCP server exposing the same functionality for agentic clients. Missing for 10: an actual OpenAPI/swagger spec was not found (404s on candidate paths) and no independent/hands-on developer report validates real-world API usage.

   • [claimed-docs] “API access”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Elicit API lets you access Elicit's research capabilities programmatically: search 138 million+ academic papers and generate automated r…”
   • [claimed-docs] “All API functionality is also available via MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, enabling use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MC…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Systematic Review: run a full review end to end, with control over search strategy, screening criteria, extraction parameters, and reporting…”
   • [claimed-docs] “claude mcp add --transport http elicit https://elicit.com/api/mcp”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://support.elicit.com/openapi.json, https://support.elicit.com/swagger.json, https://support.el…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform✓fullprobed7/10

   Docs describe an installable Python client (edison-client) with API-key/token auth and a documented workflow (client.run_tasks_until_done) to submit tasks like literature review, matching a genuine public API for driving the platform programmatically. Missing for 10: no OpenAPI/swagger spec found (404s), and no independent/hands-on corroboration beyond first-party docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “uv pip install edison-client”
   • [claimed-docs] “Authentication is done by providing an API key, which can be obtained directly from your profile page in the Edison platform”
   • [claimed-docs] “Under "API Tokens", click "Create New Token."”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_data = { "name": JobNames.LITERATURE, "query": "Which neglected diseases had a treatment developed by artificial intelligence?"…”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_response = client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/openapi.json, https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/swagger.json, https://fu…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

6. ai-native userIssue scoped/least-privilege API credentials for an agent

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Elicit—none0/10

   Elicit does offer API keys and an MCP server for programmatic/agent access (elicit-docs-34, elicit-docs-35, elicit-docs-28), so the axis of credential management applies, but there is no evidence of scoped or least-privilege permissions, roles, or restricted-scope API keys — the docs only describe managing API keys generically, not limiting their scope.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Elicit API lets you access Elicit's research capabilities programmatically: search 138 million+ academic papers and generate automated r…”
   • [claimed-docs] “All API functionality is also available via MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, enabling use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MC…”
   • [claimed-docs] “claude mcp add --transport http elicit https://elicit.com/api/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   Evidence shows only a single, account-wide API token creation flow with no mention of scopes, permissions, or least-privilege controls for agents; no evidence of scoped or restricted credential issuance.

   • [claimed-docs] “Authentication is done by providing an API key, which can be obtained directly from your profile page in the Edison platform”
   • [claimed-docs] “Under "API Tokens", click "Create New Token."”
   • [claimed-docs] “Under "API Tokens," click "Create New Token."”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Elicit~partialclaimed6/10

   Elicit documents an official API (with managed API keys) for programmatic access to search and automated research reports, plus full API functionality exposed via an MCP server for Claude Desktop/Code integration, which supports agentic, code-driven workflows. However, evidence shows only a REST-style API and API-key docs, not a dedicated official SDK/client library in specific languages, nor code samples or independent developer corroboration. Missing for 10: named client SDKs (e.g., Python/JS packages), quickstart code examples, and independent/hands-on developer confirmation of API reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Elicit API lets you access Elicit's research capabilities programmatically: search 138 million+ academic papers and generate automated r…”
   • [claimed-docs] “All API functionality is also available via MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, enabling use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MC…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Systematic Review: run a full review end to end, with control over search strategy, screening criteria, extraction parameters, and reporting…”
   • [claimed-docs] “API access”
   • [claimed-docs] “claude mcp add --transport http elicit https://elicit.com/api/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform~partialprobed6/10

   There is a documented official Python client (edison-client) with install, auth via API key, and task submission/run examples, showing a real SDK path for programmatic/agentic use. However, no OpenAPI spec was found (all probed paths 404), and the docs page itself returned 404 on a direct fetch, suggesting incomplete or unstable documentation coverage. Missing for 10: verified OpenAPI/REST spec, broader SDK language coverage, independent developer corroboration of SDK reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “uv pip install edison-client”
   • [claimed-docs] “Authentication is done by providing an API key, which can be obtained directly from your profile page in the Edison platform”
   • [claimed-docs] “Under "API Tokens", click "Create New Token."”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_data = { "name": JobNames.LITERATURE, "query": "Which neglected diseases had a treatment developed by artificial intelligence?"…”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_response = client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/openapi.json, https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/swagger.json, https://fu…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/futurehouse-cookbook.md # Page Not Found The URL `futurehouse-cookbook` does not …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

8. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Elicit—none0/10

   Elicit offers email alerts, an API, and an MCP server, but no evidence anywhere in the pack mentions webhook subscriptions or event-driven callbacks for programmatic integration.

   • [claimed-docs] “Turn on **Instant email alerts** to be immediately alerted whenever a new relevant research paper is found.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Elicit API lets you access Elicit's research capabilities programmatically: search 138 million+ academic papers and generate automated r…”
   • [claimed-docs] “All API functionality is also available via MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, enabling use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MC…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   No mention of webhooks, event subscriptions, or callback mechanisms anywhere in the docs; the client is a polling/run-tasks style API and OpenAPI probe returned 404s, giving no evidence of webhook support.

   • [claimed-docs] “task_response = client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/openapi.json, https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/swagger.json, https://fu…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

1. ai-native userGet AI-generated insights and suggestions from my data inside the product

   weight 2 · round to FutureHouse Platform
   Elicit!disputedcontradicted5/10

   Elicit's Research Agent, columns, chat-with-papers, and Systematic Review reports are documented to generate AI insights and suggestions from ingested papers (elicit-docs-11, elicit-docs-40, elicit-docs-41), and one HN user found topic analysis genuinely useful (elicit-comm-1). However, independent hands-on reports concretely contradict reliability: users found mostly incorrect summaries, missed key papers, and fabricated/hallucinated facts even when directly quoting sources (elicit-comm-3, elicit-comm-4, elicit-comm-7), and Elicit's own docs admit ~10% inaccuracy requiring manual verification (elicit-comm-2). missing for 10: independent corroboration that generated insights are consistently accurate rather than frequently hallucinated, and resolution of the documented factual-error reports.

   • [claimed-docs] “To add a column, simply tell the research agent what column(s) you'd like to add. For example, you can say: "Add a column for study type."”
   • [claimed-docs] “Chat enables you to: Compare and contrast papers - Summarize multiple papers along specific dimensions (like their methodologies) - Cluster …”
   • [claimed-docs] “the Research Agent can pull from a wide range of sources (e.g. publications, public filings, press releases), produce flexible outputs, and …”
   • [community] “I asked about media bias detection and used the topic analysis feature. A minute or so later, I had a list of concepts with citations and li…”
   • [community] “Elicit states: 'assume that around 90% of the information you see in Elicit is accurate... it's very important for you to check the work in …”
   • [community] “I gave it a topic I researched in depth recently. It gave me mostly incorrect summaries (one said hypothesis X is confirmed; nope it hasn't)…”
   • [community] “It seems like it should hallucinate less, as it directly quotes, but nope, it still hallucinates just as much and then gives a quote that di…”
   • [community] “I tried abstract summarization with a whitepaper and it came up with completely made-up facts, describing an algorithm acronym incorrectly. …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform✓fullprobed7/10

   The platform's core agents (Kosmos, Precedent, Molecules) are documented as autonomously generating insights, hypotheses, and cited reports directly from user-supplied data and literature, matching the story closely (e.g., Kosmos 'autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypotheses, and produces a comprehensive cited report'). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration beyond vendor docs, and some doc links returned 404 in probes, weakening confidence in documentation completeness.

   • [claimed-docs] “Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypotheses, and produces a comprehensive cited report.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Given a research objective and one or more datasets, Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypo…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can ask it a complex scientific question and get a high-accuracy, cited response, or task it with a deep literature review synthesizing …”
   • [claimed-docs] “It turns raw data into detailed analyses, statistical results, and publication-ready figures.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Precedent determines whether a research idea has been tried before. It searches across fields to assess novelty and identify gaps”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every conclusion is fully auditable. You can trace any finding back to the specific code or literature passage that produced it.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/futurehouse-cookbook.md # Page Not Found The URL `futurehouse-cookbook` does not …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userSet up automations that run autonomously in the background

   weight 2 · round to Elicit
   Elicit~partialclaimed5/10

   Elicit's Alerts feature lets users set up a background process that automatically monitors for new relevant papers and notifies them (e.g., via instant email alerts), which is a real autonomous background automation, and the API/MCP server also enables scripted automated report generation from external workflows. However, this is narrow (limited to paper-discovery alerts) rather than a general-purpose scheduling/automation system for arbitrary agentic tasks, and there's no evidence of recurring scheduled jobs, triggers, or workflow orchestration beyond alerts. Missing for 10: evidence of a general automation/scheduling engine, ability to chain multi-step autonomous tasks, and independent confirmation that alerts reliably run unattended over time.

   • [claimed-docs] “Turn on **Instant email alerts** to be immediately alerted whenever a new relevant research paper is found.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Alerts allow you to stay up to date on the latest research about topics that are relevant to you, so you can add them to your Library for fu…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Turn on Instant email alerts to be immediately alerted whenever a new relevant research paper is found.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Elicit API lets you access Elicit's research capabilities programmatically: search 138 million+ academic papers and generate automated r…”
   • [claimed-docs] “All API functionality is also available via MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, enabling use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MC…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   The evidence describes an API client for submitting tasks/queries and autonomous agents that complete a single task end-to-end, but there is no mention of scheduling, triggers, or background automations that run without explicit invocation. missing for 10: scheduling/cron mechanism, event-driven triggers, persistent background job management, and any docs describing recurring or unattended automation setup.

   • [claimed-docs] “task_data = { "name": JobNames.LITERATURE, "query": "Which neglected diseases had a treatment developed by artificial intelligence?"…”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_response = client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypotheses, and produces a comprehensive cited report.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userDelegate tasks to a built-in AI assistant inside the product

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Elicit✓fullcommunity8/10

   Elicit ships a built-in Research Agent that users can delegate tasks to directly (search, screening, extraction, column creation, chat with papers, skills), with effort-level control and iterative outputs, all inside the product interface (elicit-docs-2,7,8,11,12,21,40,42). Community evidence corroborates real task delegation working in practice (elicit-comm-1) though also raises accuracy concerns that temper trust in outputs (elicit-comm-2,3,4). Missing for 10: independent quality benchmarking beyond anecdotal HN threads and more recent hands-on validation of the newer effort-level/skills features.

   • [claimed-docs] “Every Research Agent session runs at an effort level, which you set from the slider in the prompt box before you send your question.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Projects in Elicit allow you to link together multiple sessions for fluid reasoning across different aspects of your work.”
   • [claimed-docs] “A skill is a set of instructions you can hand to Elicit's agent so it approaches a task a particular way.”
   • [claimed-docs] “To add a column, simply tell the research agent what column(s) you'd like to add. For example, you can say: "Add a column for study type."”
   • [claimed-docs] “the Research Agent can pull from a wide range of sources (e.g. publications, public filings, press releases), produce flexible outputs, and …”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can filter and export your sources, generate figures, and draft slides, all without leaving the conversation”
   • [claimed-docs] “Chat enables you to: Compare and contrast papers - Summarize multiple papers along specific dimensions (like their methodologies) - Cluster …”
   • [claimed-docs] “A skill is a set of instructions you hand to Elicit's agent so it approaches a task a particular way.”
   • [community] “I asked about media bias detection and used the topic analysis feature. A minute or so later, I had a list of concepts with citations and li…”
   • [community] “I gave it a topic I researched in depth recently. It gave me mostly incorrect summaries (one said hypothesis X is confirmed; nope it hasn't)…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform✓fullclaimed8/10

   The platform ships built-in autonomous agents (Kosmos, Precedent, Molecules, literature review agent) that users can delegate research tasks to via API/client, with docs describing task submission and autonomous execution producing cited reports. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration beyond vendor docs, and clearer in-product (non-API) delegation UI evidence.

   • [claimed-docs] “task_data = { "name": JobNames.LITERATURE, "query": "Which neglected diseases had a treatment developed by artificial intelligence?"…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypotheses, and produces a comprehensive cited report.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can ask it a complex scientific question and get a high-accuracy, cited response, or task it with a deep literature review synthesizing …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Precedent determines whether a research idea has been tried before. It searches across fields to assess novelty and identify gaps”
   • [claimed-docs] “Molecules is a chemistry-focused agent for molecular design and analysis.”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_response = client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Given a research objective and one or more datasets, Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypo…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userOperate the product with natural-language commands

   weight 2 · round to Elicit
   Elicit✓fullcommunity7/10

   Elicit's Research Agent and semantic search are explicitly natural-language driven (e.g., asking questions in plain language, adding columns via natural-language commands like 'Add a column for study type'), and skills let users reference natural-language instructions instead of re-typing prompts. However, community reports raise accuracy/hallucination concerns that temper confidence in reliability of NL command execution. Missing for 10: independent hands-on verification of complex multi-step NL command chains, and no evidence of NL support outside the research/agent workflows (e.g., no broader command-line or API NL interface).

   • [claimed-docs] “To add a column, simply tell the research agent what column(s) you'd like to add. For example, you can say: "Add a column for study type."”
   • [claimed-docs] “With Elicit's semantic search engine, you can ask a question in natural language, and Elicit will find relevant papers, without you having t…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Elicit's semantic search means you don't have to know all the right keywords to get relevant results.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Instead of writing out the same detailed prompt every time you run a market sizing or a landscape review, you reference the skill and the ag…”
   • [claimed-docs] “the Research Agent can pull from a wide range of sources (e.g. publications, public filings, press releases), produce flexible outputs, and …”
   • [community] “I gave it a topic I researched in depth recently. It gave me mostly incorrect summaries (one said hypothesis X is confirmed; nope it hasn't)…”
   • [community] “It seems like it should hallucinate less, as it directly quotes, but nope, it still hallucinates just as much and then gives a quote that di…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform~partialclaimed7/10

   The platform's core interaction model is natural-language queries (e.g., the query string "Which neglected diseases had a treatment developed by artificial intelligence?") passed to autonomous agents like Kosmos, Precedent, and Molecules, and docs explicitly say users can 'ask it a complex scientific question' or 'task it with a deep literature review.' However, the demonstrated flow is via a Python client (task_data dict + run_tasks_until_done), not a conversational chat UI, so it's NL-as-input-parameter rather than full conversational natural-language operation of the whole platform (e.g., no evidence of multi-turn dialogue or a chat interface). Missing for 10: evidence of a conversational/chat UI, multi-turn NL interaction, or NL control over platform features beyond the initial query.

   • [claimed-docs] “task_data = { "name": JobNames.LITERATURE, "query": "Which neglected diseases had a treatment developed by artificial intelligence?"…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypotheses, and produces a comprehensive cited report.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can ask it a complex scientific question and get a high-accuracy, cited response, or task it with a deep literature review synthesizing …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Given a research objective and one or more datasets, Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypo…”
   • [claimed-docs] “task it with a deep literature review synthesizing conflicting evidence across hundreds of papers”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

1. ai-native userExplore an interactive API reference with runnable examples

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Elicit—none0/10

   Elicit documents an API and MCP server (elicit-docs-6, elicit-docs-34, elicit-docs-35, elicit-docs-36) but there is no evidence of an interactive API reference/playground with runnable examples; probes for OpenAPI/swagger specs all returned 404 (elicit-probe-3), suggesting no such interactive reference exists.

   • [claimed-docs] “API access”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Elicit API lets you access Elicit's research capabilities programmatically: search 138 million+ academic papers and generate automated r…”
   • [claimed-docs] “All API functionality is also available via MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, enabling use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MC…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Systematic Review: run a full review end to end, with control over search strategy, screening criteria, extraction parameters, and reporting…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://support.elicit.com/openapi.json, https://support.elicit.com/swagger.json, https://support.el…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   Evidence shows only a quickstart guide with basic client code snippets, not an interactive API reference with runnable examples; probes for OpenAPI/swagger specs and doc endpoints all returned 404s, indicating no interactive reference exists.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/openapi.json, https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/swagger.json, https://fu…”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/futurehouse-cookbook.md # Page Not Found The URL `futurehouse-cookbook` does not …”
   • [claimed-docs] “uv pip install edison-client”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_response = client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDownload a machine-readable API spec (OpenAPI or equivalent)

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Elicit—none0/10

   Elicit documents a REST API (elicit-docs-34,36) and an MCP server (elicit-docs-28,35), but no evidence of a downloadable OpenAPI/Swagger spec exists; direct probes for openapi.json/swagger.json all returned 404 (elicit-probe-3). Missing for 10: any published OpenAPI/Swagger file, machine-readable schema, or API reference page listing such a spec.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Elicit API lets you access Elicit's research capabilities programmatically: search 138 million+ academic papers and generate automated r…”
   • [claimed-docs] “All API functionality is also available via MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, enabling use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MC…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Systematic Review: run a full review end to end, with control over search strategy, screening criteria, extraction parameters, and reporting…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://support.elicit.com/openapi.json, https://support.elicit.com/swagger.json, https://support.el…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   Probes for OpenAPI/swagger spec paths all returned 404, and no docs reference a machine-readable API spec; only a Python client library and manual REST auth flow are documented. Missing for 10: any OpenAPI/Swagger endpoint or downloadable spec file, any documentation mentioning API schema export.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/openapi.json, https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/swagger.json, https://fu…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userRely on versioned APIs with a documented deprecation policy

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Elicit—none0/10

   Evidence confirms Elicit has an API and MCP server (elicit-docs-34, elicit-docs-35, elicit-docs-36) but nothing documents API versioning or a deprecation policy, and probes for an OpenAPI/spec file returned 404s (elicit-probe-3).

   • [claimed-docs] “The Elicit API lets you access Elicit's research capabilities programmatically: search 138 million+ academic papers and generate automated r…”
   • [claimed-docs] “All API functionality is also available via MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, enabling use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MC…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Systematic Review: run a full review end to end, with control over search strategy, screening criteria, extraction parameters, and reporting…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://support.elicit.com/openapi.json, https://support.elicit.com/swagger.json, https://support.el…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   No evidence of API versioning scheme, changelog, or deprecation policy anywhere in the docs; OpenAPI spec probes all 404 and no versioning documentation is present. missing for 10: versioned API endpoints, changelog/release notes, documented deprecation policy or timelines.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/openapi.json, https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/swagger.json, https://fu…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userPerform bulk operations across many items at once

   weight 2 · round to Elicit
   Elicit✓fullclaimed8/10

   Elicit's core Systematic Reviews and Tables/Columns workflows explicitly apply extraction and screening operations across many papers at once (docs-11, docs-18, docs-22, docs-45), with bulk import (RIS/BIB, Zotero) and bulk export (CSV/Excel/RIS/BIB) of entire tables (docs-25, docs-38, docs-47), plus API/MCP access to run full systematic reviews programmatically at scale (docs-34, docs-36). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on evidence specifically validating bulk-scale accuracy or performance (community evidence addresses general accuracy, not bulk-operation mechanics).

   • [claimed-docs] “To add a column, simply tell the research agent what column(s) you'd like to add. For example, you can say: "Add a column for study type."”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a column for each data point you'd like to extract from your papers. Columns can pull data from the papers' body text or from tables …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Elicit supports the major steps of a systematic review: 1. Set up your review on the Setup page 2. Gather all papers for the systematic revi…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Tables can be exported in CSV and Excel format. Certain tables of sources can be exported as RIS or BIB files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Systematic Review: run a full review end to end, with control over search strategy, screening criteria, extraction parameters, and reporting…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can import RIS and BIB files into Elicit. This makes it much easier to import titles/abstracts from other tools like EndNote, Mendeley, …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Research Reports can be exported as a PDF or Word file... Pro, Scale, and Enterprise subscribers can export tables from Systematic Reviews, …”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Elicit API lets you access Elicit's research capabilities programmatically: search 138 million+ academic papers and generate automated r…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   The docs show only single-task submission via task_data/run_tasks_until_done, with no mention of batch endpoints, bulk task lists, or parallel multi-item processing APIs; missing for 10: batch/bulk submission API, documented loop or list-based task queuing, evidence of concurrent multi-item execution.

   • [claimed-docs] “task_data = { "name": JobNames.LITERATURE, "query": "Which neglected diseases had a treatment developed by artificial intelligence?"…”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_response = client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userSchedule recurring jobs or workflows

   weight 2 · round to Elicit
   Elicit~partialclaimed4/10

   Elicit's Alerts feature lets users get recurring updates when new relevant papers matching a saved search appear (via instant email alerts), which is a limited form of a recurring job, but there is no evidence of general scheduling of arbitrary Research Agent workflows, systematic reviews, or API-driven jobs on a recurring cadence. Missing for 10: ability to schedule/repeat full Research Agent or Systematic Review workflows, cron-like or interval-based automation beyond paper alerts, and confirmation this works via API/MCP for programmatic recurring runs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Turn on **Instant email alerts** to be immediately alerted whenever a new relevant research paper is found.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Alerts allow you to stay up to date on the latest research about topics that are relevant to you, so you can add them to your Library for fu…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Turn on Instant email alerts to be immediately alerted whenever a new relevant research paper is found.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Elicit API lets you access Elicit's research capabilities programmatically: search 138 million+ academic papers and generate automated r…”
   • [claimed-docs] “All API functionality is also available via MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, enabling use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MC…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   Evidence covers running one-off tasks via the client (run_tasks_until_done) but there is no mention of scheduling, cron-like recurrence, or persistent workflow automation anywhere in the docs or probes.

   • [claimed-docs] “task_data = { "name": JobNames.LITERATURE, "query": "Which neglected diseases had a treatment developed by artificial intelligence?"…”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_response = client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Sharing

1. analystShare a research session or report with collaborators who can view or build on it

   weight 2 · round to Elicit
   Elicit✓fullclaimed8/10

   Elicit has a documented feature to invite team members to collaborate live in Research Agent sessions, with edit-access collaborators able to ask the agent questions, produce new artifacts, and edit others' work, plus reports/tables can be exported as PDF/Word/CSV for sharing. missing for 10: no independent/hands-on corroboration of the live collaboration feature working smoothly, and no detail on view-only/read-access sharing permissions.

   • [claimed-docs] “Collaborators with edit access can ask the agent questions in your session, produce new artifacts (documents, tables, etc.), and edit other …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Invite your team members to collaborate live with you in Research Agent sessions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Invite your team members to collaborate live with you in Research Agent sessions. Collaborators with edit access can ask the agent questions…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Research Reports can be exported as a PDF or Word file... Pro, Scale, and Enterprise subscribers can export tables from Systematic Reviews, …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions sharing sessions, reports, or collaborative access controls; documentation focuses on API usage, agents, and task execution, not collaboration features. Missing for 10: any mention of sharing/exporting reports, collaborator invites, or team/workspace features.

   ⚑ flag

Alerts

1. researcherSet up standing searches or alerts that surface new relevant sources as they appear

   weight 1 · round to Elicit
   Elicit✓fullclaimed7/10

   Elicit's Alerts feature explicitly lets researchers set up standing topic alerts with instant email notifications when new relevant papers are found, adding them to a Library for future use — directly matching the standing-search/alert story. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification of alert accuracy or timeliness, and detail on how alert relevance/topics are configured beyond docs claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “Turn on **Instant email alerts** to be immediately alerted whenever a new relevant research paper is found.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Alerts allow you to stay up to date on the latest research about topics that are relevant to you, so you can add them to your Library for fu…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Turn on Instant email alerts to be immediately alerted whenever a new relevant research paper is found.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   The evidence describes on-demand literature search, review, and analysis agents (Kosmos, Precedent, etc.) invoked via API calls, but nothing describes standing searches, saved alerts, or recurring notifications when new relevant sources appear.

   ⚑ flag

Corpus

1. researcherUpload my own PDFs or corpus and have the agent research over them

   weight 2 · round to Elicit
   Elicit✓fullcommunity7/10

   Elicit supports importing/uploading a user's own corpus (RIS/BIB import, Zotero integration, Collections) and running research operations (chat, columns/data extraction, systematic reviews) over those uploaded papers, with the browser extension auto-fetching full text for extraction. Community feedback raises accuracy/hallucination concerns about summarization quality, which tempers reliability but does not contradict the upload/research capability itself. Missing for 10: independent hands-on verification of accuracy when researching over a user-uploaded corpus, and clearer documentation of raw multi-PDF drag-and-drop upload versus reference-manager import formats.

   • [claimed-docs] “Elicit's Zotero integration helps you bring your paper collections into Elicit, where you can extract data and analyze your papers!”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can import RIS and BIB files into Elicit. This makes it much easier to import titles/abstracts from other tools like EndNote, Mendeley, …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a column for each data point you'd like to extract from your papers. Columns can pull data from the papers' body text or from tables …”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can now organize and manage your papers in the Elicit Library using Collections. Collections help you group related research, arrange it…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Elicit will automatically fetch papers during the data extraction phase of your Systematic Reviews”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can spend less time downloading full-text PDFs from publisher websites to extract in Elicit – we'll get the papers for you”
   • [claimed-docs] “Chat enables you to: Compare and contrast papers - Summarize multiple papers along specific dimensions (like their methodologies) - Cluster …”
   • [community] “I gave it a topic I researched in depth recently. It gave me mostly incorrect summaries (one said hypothesis X is confirmed; nope it hasn't)…”
   • [community] “It seems like it should hallucinate less, as it directly quotes, but nope, it still hallucinates just as much and then gives a quote that di…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   The docs describe FutureHouse's agents (Kosmos, literature review, Precedent) searching a fixed 175M+ paper corpus and analyzing 'datasets' for experiments, but nowhere describe a mechanism for a researcher to upload their own PDFs or personal corpus for the agent to search/reason over. Without evidence of a file-upload or custom-corpus ingestion feature, this capability is not shown.

   • [claimed-docs] “Given a research objective and one or more datasets, Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypo…”
   • [claimed-docs] “It accesses 175M+ papers, trials, and patents with native understanding of citation graphs, journal quality, and clinical trial data.”
   • [claimed-docs] “specializes in processing complex experimental data, including flow cytometry, RNA-seq, and other biological datasets”
   • [claimed-docs] “task it with a deep literature review synthesizing conflicting evidence across hundreds of papers”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Reviews

1. researcherRun a systematic screening and extraction workflow across many papers with consistent criteria

   weight 2 · round to Elicit
   Elicit✓fullcommunity8/10

   Elicit documents a dedicated Systematic Reviews workflow covering setup, search/gather, title-abstract screening, automated full-text screening, and data extraction via consistent custom columns applied across all papers, with export of screening/extraction tables — directly matching the story. Community evidence raises general accuracy/hallucination concerns about Elicit's paper analysis (not specifically the systematic review pipeline), which tempers confidence in perfect consistency at scale. Missing for 10: independent hands-on validation of the systematic review workflow's accuracy/consistency specifically (vs. general chat/summarization complaints), and no third-party benchmarking of screening reliability across large paper sets.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Systematic Reviews workflow provides step-by-step guidance through search, screening, and data extraction, culminating in a research rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Elicit supports the major steps of a systematic review: 1. Set up your review on the Setup page 2. Gather all papers for the systematic revi…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Full-Text Screening is a distinct, automated step in the Systematic Review workflow that catches these mismatches before you commit to data …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a column for each data point you'd like to extract from your papers. Columns can pull data from the papers' body text or from tables …”
   • [claimed-docs] “To add a column, simply tell the research agent what column(s) you'd like to add. For example, you can say: "Add a column for study type."”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pro, Scale, and Enterprise subscribers can export tables from Systematic Reviews, including the screening recommendation tables and the data…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Research Reports can be exported as a PDF or Word file... Pro, Scale, and Enterprise subscribers can export tables from Systematic Reviews, …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Elicit can help you save up to 80% of time usually spent on a systematic review without sacrificing accuracy.”
   • [community] “I gave it a topic I researched in depth recently. It gave me mostly incorrect summaries (one said hypothesis X is confirmed; nope it hasn't)…”
   • [community] “It seems like it should hallucinate less, as it directly quotes, but nope, it still hallucinates just as much and then gives a quote that di…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform~partialprobed5/10

   The API client supports programmatic task submission (e.g., JobNames.LITERATURE) and batch execution via run_tasks_until_done, and the docs describe a literature agent that can synthesize evidence across hundreds of papers with citations, which could be scripted for repeated, consistent queries. However, there is no explicit documented workflow for structured screening/extraction with defined inclusion/exclusion criteria across a large corpus (e.g., systematic review style tables), and the cookbook page itself returns 404 on the probe, reducing confidence in the full pipeline. missing for 10: explicit systematic-review/extraction workflow docs, example of consistent-criteria batch screening, working cookbook page confirming the API details.

   • [claimed-docs] “task_data = { "name": JobNames.LITERATURE, "query": "Which neglected diseases had a treatment developed by artificial intelligence?"…”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_response = client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)”
   • [claimed-docs] “task it with a deep literature review synthesizing conflicting evidence across hundreds of papers”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can ask it a complex scientific question and get a high-accuracy, cited response, or task it with a deep literature review synthesizing …”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/futurehouse-cookbook.md # Page Not Found The URL `futurehouse-cookbook` does not …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userDo everything through the API that I can do in the UI

   weight 2 · round to FutureHouse Platform
   Elicit~partialclaimed4/10

   Elicit's API and MCP server expose search and end-to-end Systematic Review functionality (search, screening, extraction, reporting), giving programmatic access to core research capabilities, but there's no evidence that UI-only features like the interactive Research Agent chat, Skills, real-time collaboration, columns customization, alerts, or the browser extension are exposed via the API/MCP surface. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of full feature parity, API/MCP access to Research Agent conversational sessions, skills, collaboration, and alerts.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Elicit API lets you access Elicit's research capabilities programmatically: search 138 million+ academic papers and generate automated r…”
   • [claimed-docs] “All API functionality is also available via MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, enabling use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MC…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Systematic Review: run a full review end to end, with control over search strategy, screening criteria, extraction parameters, and reporting…”
   • [claimed-docs] “API access”
   • [claimed-docs] “claude mcp add --transport http elicit https://elicit.com/api/mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform~partialprobed5/10

   The edison-client library and quickstart docs show that core agent tasks (e.g., JobNames.LITERATURE) can be invoked via API with authentication and task submission (docs-1–4,12), and the cookbook describes multiple agents (Kosmos, Precedent, Molecules) that presumably map to API job types, suggesting broad functional overlap with the UI. However, there is no explicit documentation stating full feature parity between UI and API, no OpenAPI/swagger spec discoverable (probe-3 shows 404s across all candidate paths), and no confirmation that all UI-exposed capabilities (e.g., account management, dataset uploads, report viewing) are also API-accessible. missing for 10: explicit parity statement, discoverable OpenAPI schema, evidence covering non-task UI features (billing, dataset management, report exports) via API.

   • [claimed-docs] “task_data = { "name": JobNames.LITERATURE, "query": "Which neglected diseases had a treatment developed by artificial intelligence?"…”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_response = client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypotheses, and produces a comprehensive cited report.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Precedent determines whether a research idea has been tried before. It searches across fields to assess novelty and identify gaps”
   • [claimed-docs] “Molecules is a chemistry-focused agent for molecular design and analysis.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/openapi.json, https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/swagger.json, https://fu…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userExport all of my data in open formats and leave

   weight 3 · round to Elicit
   Elicit~partialclaimed6/10

   Elicit supports exporting Library, tables, and reports in open formats (RIS, CSV, BIB, PDF, DOCX) and offers API/MCP access for programmatic retrieval, which supports data portability. However, export of core artifacts like screening/extraction tables is gated behind Pro/Scale/Enterprise plans, and there's no evidence of full account data export (e.g., all research agent sessions, projects, skills, chat history) in open formats, nor an explicit 'delete account and take everything' workflow. missing for 10: full-account/session export beyond tables and library, confirmation of free-tier export ability, independent verification of export completeness/fidelity.

   • [claimed-docs] “Your Elicit Library can be exported as a .ris file, which you can import into Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote, or another reference manager.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pro, Scale, and Enterprise subscribers can export tables from Systematic Reviews, including the screening recommendation tables and the data…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Tables can be exported in CSV and Excel format. Certain tables of sources can be exported as RIS or BIB files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Export to RIS, CSV, BIB, PDF and DOCX”
   • [claimed-docs] “Research Reports can be exported as a PDF or Word file... Pro, Scale, and Enterprise subscribers can export tables from Systematic Reviews, …”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Elicit API lets you access Elicit's research capabilities programmatically: search 138 million+ academic papers and generate automated r…”
   • [claimed-docs] “All API functionality is also available via MCP (Model Context Protocol) server, enabling use from Claude Desktop, Claude Code, and other MC…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   No evidence of any data export capability, open-format export, or account portability/deletion feature; documentation covers agent/task usage and API access but nothing about exporting user data or leaving with it.

   ⚑ flag

3. ai-native userRead the product's source under an open license

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Elicit—none0/10

   Elicit is a closed, proprietary SaaS research tool; no evidence in the pack mentions an open-source repository, source code availability, or an open license for its codebase. This axis applies (a product could plausibly open its source), but no evidence supports it.

   ⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   No evidence pack items reference an open-source license or public repository for the FutureHouse Platform itself; only client library install instructions and product docs are provided, with no license information. missing for 10: evidence of open-source license, public source repo link, license file or statement.

   ⚑ flag

Pricing

1. researcherTry the product meaningfully on a free tier or trial

   weight 1 · round to FutureHouse Platform
   Elicit—none0/10

   The evidence pack includes pricing-page references (e.g., elicit-docs-4, elicit-docs-6, elicit-docs-31) but none describe a free tier's scope, limits, or a trial period — no content confirms what a researcher could do without paying. Axis clearly applies to a SaaS research tool, but no evidence substantiates a meaningful free/trial experience.

   ⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform✓fullclaimed7/10

   Docs explicitly state Edison maintains a generous free tier for academics, with paid plans only needed for higher rate limits/additional features, and the quickstart shows a full API key + client workflow to run real tasks (literature review job). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation of free tier limits and no clarity on exact quota/duration restrictions.

   • [claimed-docs] “Edison maintains a generous free tier for academics. Researchers who need higher rate limits or additional features can subscribe to paid pl…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Researchers who need higher rate limits or additional features can subscribe to paid plans.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Authentication is done by providing an API key, which can be obtained directly from your profile page in the Edison platform”
   • [claimed-docs] “Under "API Tokens", click "Create New Token."”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_data = { "name": JobNames.LITERATURE, "query": "Which neglected diseases had a treatment developed by artificial intelligence?"…”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_response = client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. researcherUnderstand plan pricing and usage limits before committing

   weight 2 · round to FutureHouse Platform
   Elicit~partialclaimed3/10

   Evidence confirms a public pricing page exists (elicit.com/pricing) and reveals plan tier names (Pro, Scale, Enterprise) tied to feature gating like table exports, but no evidence pack content shows actual price points, free-tier limits, or usage caps that a researcher would need to compare plans before committing. Missing for 10: actual price figures per tier, usage/query limits, free-plan restrictions, and any independent confirmation of pricing transparency.

   • [claimed-docs] “Import from Zotero”
   • [claimed-docs] “API access”
   • [claimed-docs] “Export to RIS, CSV, BIB, PDF and DOCX”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pro, Scale, and Enterprise subscribers can export tables from Systematic Reviews, including the screening recommendation tables and the data…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Research Reports can be exported as a PDF or Word file... Pro, Scale, and Enterprise subscribers can export tables from Systematic Reviews, …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform~partialclaimed4/10

   Docs confirm a free tier for academics and paid plans for higher rate limits/features, but no concrete pricing figures, tier breakdowns, or specific usage limit numbers are provided anywhere in the pack. missing for 10: actual price points, detailed rate-limit thresholds, feature comparison table across tiers, billing/usage dashboard evidence.

   • [claimed-docs] “Researchers who need higher rate limits or additional features can subscribe to paid plans.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Edison maintains a generous free tier for academics. Researchers who need higher rate limits or additional features can subscribe to paid pl…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userChoose where my data is stored (region/residency)

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Elicit—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions data residency, regional storage, or the ability to choose where data is stored; Elicit's docs cover exports, imports, API, and workflows but not data residency options. missing for 10: any mention of region/data-residency controls, enterprise data-locality options, or storage location settings.

   ⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data residency, regional storage options, or geographic control over where data is processed/stored; documentation only covers API usage, agents, and pricing tiers.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userPrevent my data from being used to train AI models

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Elicit—none0/10

   No evidence pack items address opt-out from AI training, data usage policies for model training, or any privacy/data-control settings related to training data; all evidence covers product features (search, review workflows, exports, API/MCP) with no mention of training-data privacy controls. missing for 10: any documentation of a training opt-out setting, data usage/privacy policy statement, or enterprise data handling terms addressing model training.

   ⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data usage for AI training opt-out, data privacy controls, or any training-data policy; the docs focus entirely on product features and API usage.

   ⚑ flag

3. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Elicit—none0/10

   No evidence pack items address data retention policies, deletion controls, or account/data deletion mechanisms; docs cover export/import formats but not retention or deletion of user data.

   ⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data retention policies, deletion controls, or privacy/data lifecycle management; documentation focuses on client setup, agents, and use cases only.

   ⚑ flag

4. ai-native userOpt out of telemetry and usage tracking

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Elicit—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions telemetry, usage tracking, or an opt-out mechanism; only unrelated docs about search, exports, and API/MCP features appear. This is a reasonable privacy-posture question for a SaaS AI product, but nothing in the evidence pack supports Elicit offering telemetry opt-out.

   ⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions telemetry, usage tracking, analytics collection, or an opt-out mechanism anywhere in the FutureHouse docs or probes; the documentation focuses on client setup and agent features only.

   ⚑ flag

Reports

1. researcherExport results to common formats, including documents, spreadsheets, and reference-manager files

   weight 1 · round to Elicit
   Elicit✓fullclaimed9/10

   Elicit documents export of tables/reports to CSV, Excel, PDF, DOCX, RIS, and BIB, covering documents, spreadsheets, and reference-manager formats, and also supports Zotero/EndNote/Mendeley import/export via RIS. Missing for 10: independent hands-on verification of export fidelity beyond vendor docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Tables can be exported in CSV and Excel format. Certain tables of sources can be exported as RIS or BIB files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Export to RIS, CSV, BIB, PDF and DOCX”
   • [claimed-docs] “Research Reports can be exported as a PDF or Word file... Pro, Scale, and Enterprise subscribers can export tables from Systematic Reviews, …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Your Elicit Library can be exported as a .ris file, which you can import into Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote, or another reference manager.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pro, Scale, and Enterprise subscribers can export tables from Systematic Reviews, including the screening recommendation tables and the data…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can import RIS and BIB files into Elicit. This makes it much easier to import titles/abstracts from other tools like EndNote, Mendeley, …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   The evidence describes cited reports and analyses produced by Kosmos/agents but nowhere mentions exporting to document, spreadsheet, or reference-manager formats (e.g., PDF/DOCX, CSV/XLSX, BibTeX/RIS); the docs-cookbook page itself is even reported as not found in the probe.

   • [claimed-docs] “Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypotheses, and produces a comprehensive cited report.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every conclusion is fully auditable. You can trace any finding back to the specific code or literature passage that produced it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “It turns raw data into detailed analyses, statistical results, and publication-ready figures.”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 200 at https://futurehouse.gitbook.io/futurehouse-cookbook.md # Page Not Found The URL `futurehouse-cookbook` does not …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. analystGet a structured report with sections, tables, and a summary that I can share with stakeholders

   weight 3 · round to Elicit
   Elicit✓fullclaimed8/10

   Elicit's Systematic Reviews workflow produces a research report summarizing papers, includes data extraction and screening tables, and both reports and tables can be exported as PDF/Word/CSV/Excel for sharing with stakeholders (elicit-docs-1, elicit-docs-22, elicit-docs-47, elicit-docs-19, elicit-docs-25). The Research Agent can also produce documents, tables, and figures within a session (elicit-docs-9, elicit-docs-21, elicit-docs-33). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration that the exported report format is polished enough for external stakeholder sharing, and no evidence of customizable report sectioning beyond the standard systematic-review structure.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Systematic Reviews workflow provides step-by-step guidance through search, screening, and data extraction, culminating in a research rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Elicit supports the major steps of a systematic review: 1. Set up your review on the Setup page 2. Gather all papers for the systematic revi…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Research Reports can be exported as a PDF or Word file... Pro, Scale, and Enterprise subscribers can export tables from Systematic Reviews, …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Pro, Scale, and Enterprise subscribers can export tables from Systematic Reviews, including the screening recommendation tables and the data…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Tables can be exported in CSV and Excel format. Certain tables of sources can be exported as RIS or BIB files.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Collaborators with edit access can ask the agent questions in your session, produce new artifacts (documents, tables, etc.), and edit other …”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can filter and export your sources, generate figures, and draft slides, all without leaving the conversation”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform~partialclaimed6/10

   Docs describe Kosmos/agents producing a 'comprehensive cited report' with statistical results, publication-ready figures, and traceable citations, which implies structured, shareable output, but there's no explicit mention of report sections/tables format or export/sharing mechanisms for stakeholders. missing for 10: explicit description of report structure (sections/tables), export or sharing functionality, and independent confirmation of report format quality.

   • [claimed-docs] “Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypotheses, and produces a comprehensive cited report.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every conclusion is fully auditable. You can trace any finding back to the specific code or literature passage that produced it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “It turns raw data into detailed analyses, statistical results, and publication-ready figures.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Given a research objective and one or more datasets, Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypo…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can trace any finding back to the specific code or literature passage that produced it.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent runs

1. researcherPose a research question and get an autonomous multi-step investigation, not just a single-pass summary

   weight 3 · round to FutureHouse Platform
   Elicit~partialcommunity6/10

   Elicit's Research Agent and Systematic Review workflows are explicitly documented as multi-step (effort-level slider from Fastest to Smartest, pulling from multiple source types, iterating until output is complete, and separate search/screen/extract/report phases) rather than single-pass answers (elicit-docs-2, elicit-docs-12/13, elicit-docs-21/33, elicit-docs-22/45). However, hands-on community reports describe results arriving quickly and resembling a single pass over topic clusters rather than deep autonomous investigation, and multiple independent accounts report missed papers, hallucinated conclusions, and shallow reasoning that undercut confidence in true multi-step depth (elicit-comm-1, elicit-comm-3, elicit-comm-4, elicit-comm-5). Missing for 10: independent verification that the agent performs genuinely autonomous multi-step reasoning (not just sequential fixed workflow steps) and evidence rebutting the accuracy/depth complaints.

   • [claimed-docs] “Every Research Agent session runs at an effort level, which you set from the slider in the prompt box before you send your question.”
   • [claimed-docs] “the Research Agent can pull from a wide range of sources (e.g. publications, public filings, press releases), produce flexible outputs, and …”
   • [claimed-docs] “click it to open the slider and move between Fastest, Fast, Balanced, Smart, and Smartest”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can filter and export your sources, generate figures, and draft slides, all without leaving the conversation”
   • [claimed-docs] “Elicit supports the major steps of a systematic review: 1. Set up your review on the Setup page 2. Gather all papers for the systematic revi…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Full-Text Screening is a distinct, automated step in the Systematic Review workflow that catches these mismatches before you commit to data …”
   • [community] “I asked about media bias detection and used the topic analysis feature. A minute or so later, I had a list of concepts with citations and li…”
   • [community] “I gave it a topic I researched in depth recently. It gave me mostly incorrect summaries (one said hypothesis X is confirmed; nope it hasn't)…”
   • [community] “It seems like it should hallucinate less, as it directly quotes, but nope, it still hallucinates just as much and then gives a quote that di…”
   • [community] “Testing Elicit gave me quite a bit worse results than using PaperQA by futurehouse. While paperqa could understand a bit of the nuance of a …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform✓fullclaimed8/10

   Docs describe Kosmos and other agents autonomously reading literature, writing/executing analysis code, generating hypotheses, and producing cited multi-step reports (not single-pass summaries), with auditable traceability of findings and multi-agent capabilities (Precedent, Molecules, literature review across hundreds of papers). This directly matches the story of posing a question and getting an autonomous multi-step investigation. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification of the multi-step autonomy claims (probe shows docs page 404'd, reducing corroboration strength) and no third-party case study confirming real-world multi-step behavior.

   • [claimed-docs] “Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypotheses, and produces a comprehensive cited report.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Given a research objective and one or more datasets, Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypo…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every conclusion is fully auditable. You can trace any finding back to the specific code or literature passage that produced it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can ask it a complex scientific question and get a high-accuracy, cited response, or task it with a deep literature review synthesizing …”
   • [claimed-docs] “task it with a deep literature review synthesizing conflicting evidence across hundreds of papers”
   • [claimed-docs] “Precedent determines whether a research idea has been tried before. It searches across fields to assess novelty and identify gaps”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. analystStart a long research job that keeps working unattended and notifies me when the result is ready

   weight 2 · round to FutureHouse Platform
   Elicit~partialclaimed4/10

   Elicit documents an alerts feature that emails you when new relevant papers are found (elicit-docs-3, elicit-docs-15, elicit-docs-26), and long-running workflows like Systematic Reviews and Research Agent effort levels ('Smartest' mode) imply tasks that can take longer to complete (elicit-docs-2, elicit-docs-13, elicit-docs-22). However, alerts are for ongoing topic monitoring, not notification of a specific job's completion, and there's no evidence of a 'start and walk away, get notified when this specific job is done' async job model. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of background/async execution of a research job plus a completion notification (vs. topic-monitoring alerts), and any independent confirmation this works as described.

   • [claimed-docs] “Turn on **Instant email alerts** to be immediately alerted whenever a new relevant research paper is found.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Alerts allow you to stay up to date on the latest research about topics that are relevant to you, so you can add them to your Library for fu…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Turn on Instant email alerts to be immediately alerted whenever a new relevant research paper is found.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every Research Agent session runs at an effort level, which you set from the slider in the prompt box before you send your question.”
   • [claimed-docs] “click it to open the slider and move between Fastest, Fast, Balanced, Smart, and Smartest”
   • [claimed-docs] “Elicit supports the major steps of a systematic review: 1. Set up your review on the Setup page 2. Gather all papers for the systematic revi…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform~partialclaimed5/10

   The client SDK exposes a task submission and `run_tasks_until_done` pattern (docs-4, docs-12) plus descriptions of Kosmos autonomously running long, multi-step research (literature review, code execution, hypothesis generation) unattended (docs-5, docs-13, docs-19), supporting the 'long unattended job' half of the story. However there is no evidence of any notification mechanism (email, webhook, push) when a job completes — the only documented pattern is a client-side polling call that blocks until done, not an async notify-on-completion flow. Missing for 10: explicit notification/webhook/email-on-completion feature, evidence of true async fire-and-forget job submission separate from polling.

   • [claimed-docs] “task_data = { "name": JobNames.LITERATURE, "query": "Which neglected diseases had a treatment developed by artificial intelligence?"…”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_response = client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypotheses, and produces a comprehensive cited report.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Given a research objective and one or more datasets, Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypo…”
   • [claimed-docs] “task it with a deep literature review synthesizing conflicting evidence across hundreds of papers”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. researcherSteer the depth, effort, and scope of a research run before or while it executes

   weight 1 · round to Elicit
   Elicit~partialclaimed7/10

   Elicit's Research Agent lets users set an effort level (Fastest→Smartest) via a slider before sending a query, and users can shape scope through columns, skills, and iterative follow-up prompts within a session; the API also exposes control over search strategy, screening criteria, and extraction parameters for Systematic Reviews. However, evidence only shows steering before/between turns, not genuine mid-execution adjustment of an in-flight run. Missing for 10: documentation of pausing/adjusting effort or scope while a run is actively executing, and independent verification that scope/effort controls meaningfully change output depth.

   • [claimed-docs] “Every Research Agent session runs at an effort level, which you set from the slider in the prompt box before you send your question.”
   • [claimed-docs] “click it to open the slider and move between Fastest, Fast, Balanced, Smart, and Smartest”
   • [claimed-docs] “To add a column, simply tell the research agent what column(s) you'd like to add. For example, you can say: "Add a column for study type."”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a column for each data point you'd like to extract from your papers. Columns can pull data from the papers' body text or from tables …”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can filter and export your sources, generate figures, and draft slides, all without leaving the conversation”
   • [claimed-docs] “Systematic Review: run a full review end to end, with control over search strategy, screening criteria, extraction parameters, and reporting…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform—none0/10

   Evidence shows job submission with a query and job name, plus a mid-run polling helper (run_tasks_until_done), but no documented parameters or controls for adjusting depth, effort level, or scope of a run before or during execution.

   • [claimed-docs] “task_data = { "name": JobNames.LITERATURE, "query": "Which neglected diseases had a treatment developed by artificial intelligence?"…”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_response = client.run_tasks_until_done(task_data)”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Citations

1. researcherSee citations for every substantive claim so I can verify it against the underlying source

   weight 3 · round to FutureHouse Platform
   Elicit!disputedcontradicted5/10

   Elicit's search/columns features are built around pulling data from papers with links back to sources (elicit-docs-18, elicit-docs-20), and a hands-on user confirms getting 'a list of concepts with citations and links to papers' (elicit-comm-1). However, independent hands-on reports directly contradict the claim that citations reliably let you verify claims: users found Elicit 'hallucinates just as much and then gives a quote that directly contradicts its statement' (elicit-comm-4), produced 'mostly incorrect summaries' and missed key papers (elicit-comm-3), and Elicit itself warns only ~90% accuracy with a need to 'check the work in Elicit closely' (elicit-comm-2). Missing for 10: evidence that citation/quote extraction is reliably accurate, independent verification benchmarks, and resolution of the hallucination-despite-quoting complaints.

   • [claimed-docs] “Create a column for each data point you'd like to extract from your papers. Columns can pull data from the papers' body text or from tables …”
   • [claimed-docs] “With Elicit's semantic search engine, you can ask a question in natural language, and Elicit will find relevant papers, without you having t…”
   • [community] “I asked about media bias detection and used the topic analysis feature. A minute or so later, I had a list of concepts with citations and li…”
   • [community] “Elicit states: 'assume that around 90% of the information you see in Elicit is accurate... it's very important for you to check the work in …”
   • [community] “I gave it a topic I researched in depth recently. It gave me mostly incorrect summaries (one said hypothesis X is confirmed; nope it hasn't)…”
   • [community] “It seems like it should hallucinate less, as it directly quotes, but nope, it still hallucinates just as much and then gives a quote that di…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform✓fullclaimed7/10

   Docs state that outputs are cited and auditable, with claims traceable back to specific literature passages or code, and that literature review/answer agents produce cited responses. This is first-party documentation only, with no independent/hands-on corroboration of citation accuracy or completeness. missing for 10: independent verification of citation accuracy, example of an actual cited report output, detail on citation format/traceability mechanism.

   • [claimed-docs] “Every conclusion is fully auditable. You can trace any finding back to the specific code or literature passage that produced it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can trace any finding back to the specific code or literature passage that produced it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can ask it a complex scientific question and get a high-accuracy, cited response, or task it with a deep literature review synthesizing …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypotheses, and produces a comprehensive cited report.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Given a research objective and one or more datasets, Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypo…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Corpus

1. researcherSearch scholarly literature and primary sources, not just the open web

   weight 2 · round to Elicit
   Elicit✓fullclaimed9/10

   Elicit's docs clearly show it searches scholarly literature (138M+ academic papers via semantic and keyword search), clinical trials, and journal-restricted queries, plus API/MCP access to the same corpus and systematic-review workflows built around paper screening/extraction rather than general web search. This directly matches the story of searching scholarly/primary sources rather than the open web. Missing for 10: independent corroboration specifically about breadth/quality of the scholarly corpus (community evidence addresses answer accuracy/hallucination, not source scope, so it doesn't contradict this particular axis).

   • [claimed-docs] “With Elicit's semantic search engine, you can ask a question in natural language, and Elicit will find relevant papers, without you having t…”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Elicit API lets you access Elicit's research capabilities programmatically: search 138 million+ academic papers and generate automated r…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Elicit allows you to search both research papers and clinical trials.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Elicit offers both semantic search and keyword search to find the most relevant papers for your systematic review.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add +journal:"INSERT JOURNAL NAME HERE" to your query”
   • [claimed-docs] “Advanced search filters are a powerful hidden feature in the Find Papers workflow. You can use them to search within a particular journal, r…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Systematic Review: run a full review end to end, with control over search strategy, screening criteria, extraction parameters, and reporting…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform✓fullclaimed8/10

   Docs describe agents (LITERATURE task, Kosmos, Precedent) that explicitly search scholarly literature, trials, and patents, accessing '175M+ papers, trials, and patents' with citation graph and journal quality awareness, and produce cited reports auditable back to specific literature passages. This directly matches the researcher story of searching scholarly/primary sources beyond the open web. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of search coverage and source quality beyond vendor docs, and clarity on which specific databases/indices are used.

   • [claimed-docs] “It accesses 175M+ papers, trials, and patents with native understanding of citation graphs, journal quality, and clinical trial data.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Precedent determines whether a research idea has been tried before. It searches across fields to assess novelty and identify gaps”
   • [claimed-docs] “Precedent determines whether a research idea has been tried before. It searches across fields to assess novelty and identify gaps, helping y…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Kosmos autonomously reads literature, writes and executes analysis code, generates hypotheses, and produces a comprehensive cited report.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every conclusion is fully auditable. You can trace any finding back to the specific code or literature passage that produced it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “task_data = { "name": JobNames.LITERATURE, "query": "Which neglected diseases had a treatment developed by artificial intelligence?"…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Synthesis

1. analystSee where sources agree and disagree instead of a single unqualified answer

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Elicit~partialcommunity5/10

   Elicit's Chat/Compare feature explicitly lets analysts 'compare and contrast papers' and 'summarize multiple papers along specific dimensions,' and its column/table extraction lets you see each paper's data side-by-side, which supports spotting agreement/disagreement across sources. However, there is no dedicated feature that explicitly flags or highlights when sources conflict versus concur (no consensus/disagreement indicator), and community reports note the model can hallucinate quotes that contradict its own summaries, undermining confidence in cross-source synthesis. Missing for 10: an explicit contradiction/agreement-detection UI, and independent verification that comparisons are reliably accurate rather than hallucination-prone.

   • [claimed-docs] “Chat enables you to: Compare and contrast papers - Summarize multiple papers along specific dimensions (like their methodologies) - Cluster …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Create a column for each data point you'd like to extract from your papers. Columns can pull data from the papers' body text or from tables …”
   • [claimed-docs] “To add a column, simply tell the research agent what column(s) you'd like to add. For example, you can say: "Add a column for study type."”
   • [claimed-docs] “Elicit supports the major steps of a systematic review: 1. Set up your review on the Setup page 2. Gather all papers for the systematic revi…”
   • [community] “It seems like it should hallucinate less, as it directly quotes, but nope, it still hallucinates just as much and then gives a quote that di…”
   • [community] “I gave it a topic I researched in depth recently. It gave me mostly incorrect summaries (one said hypothesis X is confirmed; nope it hasn't)…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   FutureHouse Platform~partialclaimed5/10

   Docs mention tasking the platform with 'a deep literature review synthesizing conflicting evidence across hundreds of papers' and full auditability back to source passages, suggesting some capability to surface disagreement across sources, but there is no dedicated UI/feature shown for explicitly contrasting agreeing vs disagreeing sources, no example output demonstrating this, and no independent/hands-on verification. missing for 10: concrete example output showing conflicting evidence highlighted, dedicated UI feature for source agreement/disagreement, independent corroboration beyond vendor docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can ask it a complex scientific question and get a high-accuracy, cited response, or task it with a deep literature review synthesizing …”
   • [claimed-docs] “task it with a deep literature review synthesizing conflicting evidence across hundreds of papers”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every conclusion is fully auditable. You can trace any finding back to the specific code or literature passage that produced it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can trace any finding back to the specific code or literature passage that produced it.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag