Methodology

How Recensa checks a finished document, how we measure whether it works, and what it deliberately doesn't cover. Written for readers evaluating an independent verification step.

Last updated 2026-05-14

Methodology

What Recensa checks, how, and what it doesn't.

A checking tool that won't state its limits isn't a checking tool.

Run a free check Product overview

Independence is structural

Recensa does not draft documents. It runs outside the workflow that produced the document and evaluates the submitted file as finished evidence. That matters because a review inside the drafting workflow may carry forward the same context, assumptions, and interpretation of the requirements — even when a different model performs the review.

The three checks

Recensa offers three depths, and the difference is what the document is compared against: itself, your own uploaded source material, or outside sources. Each depth adds what it can reach without ever claiming to rule on what is true.

Check	Compares against	Status
Internal Check (Quick)	The document against itself — internal contradictions, broken cross-references, defined-term drift, numeric conflicts.	Free
Source Check (Full)	Plus your own uploaded source material.	Available
External Check (Deep)	Plus outside sources. Reports what sources say and whether they support a claim. It does not rule on what is true.	Coming

Two kinds of checks, and we tell you which is which

Rule-based checks apply explicit rules rather than asking a model for a qualitative judgment. Reviewed findings require reading. We separate the two on purpose, because a checking tool that blurs them is overclaiming — and overclaiming is the one thing an honest checker can't do.

Rule-based checks

Arithmetic is recomputed. Filenames, file types, duplicates, and configured page limits are validated mechanically. These apply explicit rules — no qualitative judgment.

Reviewed findings

A contradiction between two clauses, a term that drifts, a reference traced to a package item. These are traced to their evidence, and where interpretation is involved, we say so.

Every finding is tied to evidence: the exact passage, calculation, package item, source, or governing rule that produced it. If we cannot show the basis for a finding, we do not report it.

How we know it works

Recensa is measured, not asserted.

We maintain a test set of documents with known defects, labeled by hand. The labels are decided by a person reading the documents — never by asking the system to grade its own output, which would only prove it agrees with itself.

Every change to the engine is measured against that set before it ships. We run the set multiple times, because the same document can produce slightly different results on different runs, and a single run cannot tell a real improvement apart from ordinary variation. Results are reported as ranges rather than single numbers.

The model versions, the code commit, and the contents of the test set are recorded with every measurement, so any result can be traced and re-checked later.

A change ships only if it does not reduce what we catch. Finding fewer real problems is the failure that matters.

We don't publish accuracy scores. A single number would imply more than any test can support, and it would quietly stop being true the moment an underlying model changes. What we can tell you is exactly how we measure — and that's the more useful thing to judge us on.

Three things people conflate

Process integrity, file integrity, and substantive correctness are three different things. Recensa can certify the first two — which checks ran, and that the file hasn't changed since. It cannot certify the third, and no honest independent check could.

	What it means	Does Recensa certify it?
Process integrity	Which checks ran, and when.	Yes — the Proof Report.
File integrity	Whether the document has changed since.	Yes — the seal.
Substantive correctness	Whether the content is actually right.	No. That is yours.

The seal answers the second question. It does not answer the third, and no honest independent check could. What the Checked mark certifies →

What we keep

We do not keep your document — it is processed to produce your review. We keep only what verification needs later: a cryptographic fingerprint of the file, a verification record, and report metadata. The fingerprint does not contain the document.

A cryptographic fingerprint of the file. It does not contain the document, and is used only to determine whether a later file is an exact match.
A verification record — the ID, the timestamp, and which checks ran.
Report metadata — counts and categories of findings.

Your review report may quote passages from your document, because a finding has to show its evidence. If you save or download a report, it contains those excerpts.

Processing involves third parties. Model providers, hosting, and error monitoring each have their own handling and retention. We name every one of them, and what they see: subprocessors and AI & your documents.

What this doesn't cover

It will not tell you whether your document is a good idea, or what is true about the world. Whether a clause is favourable, a price competitive, a strategy sound — those depend on whose side you are on. Recensa is on nobody's side. That is the point of an independent check, and also its limit.

Whether your document is a good idea.Whether a clause is favourable, a price competitive, a strategy sound — those depend on whose side you are on. Recensa is on nobody's side.
What is true about the world. Where a check reaches outside your document, it reports what sources say and whether they support a claim. You decide.
Recensa can miss things.No check catches everything. That's why every finding shows its basis, and why you make the final call rather than the system.
Recensa raises things for you to judge, not to obey.Some findings will be fine on inspection. A second opinion that never questions anything isn't a second opinion.
The seal covers integrity, not correctness.It confirms the file hasn't changed since Recensa checked it. It doesn't say the document is right.
Funding-opportunity instructions always supersede general rules. We check against published general requirements; your specific opportunity governs.
This isn't legal, compliance, editorial, or academic professional advice.

See it on a finished document

The Internal Check is free, and no account is needed to verify the result.

Run a free check