# Editorial routing shapes how computational results are qualified in AI-assisted scientific writing

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.14288 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.14288/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 29 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [ChemCrow: Augmenting large-language models with chemistry tools](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05376/) (2023)
- [Towards End-to-End Automation of AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.15497/) (2026)
- [Generalization Bias in Large Language Model Summarization of Scientific Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.00025/) (2025)
- [MDCrow: Automating Molecular Dynamics Workflows with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.09565/) (2025)
- [SciIntBench: Measuring LLM Compliance with Research Integrity Norms Under Adversarial Framing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.29468/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models increasingly analyze computational results and draft manuscripts, making reliable communication as important as correct analysis. Using fixed computational evidence, we tested whether assigning comparisons across modeling choices elsewhere in a research workflow changes manuscript reporting. In constrained sentence-writing tasks, Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 5 often omitted numerical qualifications when detailed comparisons were assigned to a group repository, but retained them more often when the same comparison was assigned to Supporting Information or its own working notes; Claude Opus 5 was less sensitive. These effects did not follow a simple accessibility ordering. A targeted placement rule largely restored sentence-level qualification, whereas a generic accuracy reminder did not. Longer contributions retained numerical qualifications, although some summaries across computational settings were still redirected to the repository. Thus, documenting context within an AI workflow does not ensure its communication where readers encounter the result.