# Claim-Gated Source-Risk Auditing for Generative Search

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.29145 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.29145/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 12 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckList](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.04118/) (2020)
- [Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14627/) (2023)
- [Ragas: Automated Evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.15217/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Verifiability in Generative Search Engines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.09848/) (2023)
- [RAGTruth: A Hallucination Corpus for Developing Trustworthy Retrieval-Augmented Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.00396/) (2023)
- [ARES: An Automated Evaluation Framework for Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09476/) (2023)
- [GEO: Generative Engine Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09735/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

A generative search answer can cite a supported passage yet omit a source relationship that changes its interpretation. We specify a claim-gated audit of the query-source-answer tuple. An omission is resolved only when relationship evidence, answer adoption, materiality, and disclosure are all observed; incomplete evidence remains unresolved rather than being treated as independence. The specification separates this endpoint from citation support and review priority, and binds decisions to versioned evidence spans. A reference checker makes the record contract executable. On an exhaustive synthetic suite, it reproduces all 81 three-state predicate combinations and rejects 192 deliberately malformed records. Common-guard baselines and predicate ablations isolate endpoint logic from missing-evidence handling, while controlled transitions check support separation and evidence removal. These are finite contract-conformance results, not detector accuracy or evidence of improved user outcomes. We define the independent annotation, held-out evaluation, and paired utility tests still required to establish semantic validity and deployment benefit.