See a Document Check, end to end
Walk through a real Document Check end to end: three models review a sample proposal independently, then produce the annotated copy, the issues checklist, and the Proof Report you receive on every review.
Last updated 2026-05-14
Upload a finished document and three models review it independently. Below is a real check of a sample proposal — the annotated copy, the issues checklist, and the Proof Report you’d receive, exactly as the product produces them.
See it work
Three models check your document. Nothing changes until you say so.
A real review of a sample proposal. Recensa flags what needs a human's eyes — figures that don't reconcile, claims that carry risk, wording to confirm — then hands you three deliverables: an annotated copy, a tracked checklist, and a standalone proof report.
Northwind Analytics LLC
Freight & Logistics Intelligence
Executive Summary
Northwind Analytics is pleased to present this proposal to Cedar Ridge Logistics for the design and deployment of a centralized freight analytics platform. The total investment for this engagement is $48,000, inclusive of licensing, implementation, and training.1 The project will begin in Q2 2025 and reach go-live within four months of a March 2026 kickoff.3
Our platform will consolidate data from the the5 client's existing systems and provide real-time visibility across all distribution centers. The team are6 confident this engagement will recieve7 strong adoption and deliver measurable improvements within the first two quarters of operation.
Scope of Work
The engagement covers three phases: discovery, implementation, and enablement. During discovery, Northwind will integrate it with the existing dispatch system before the client approves it.2 Detailed milestones are described in Section 4.
Investment breakdown
Northwind guarantees a 40% reduction in dispatch errors within the first quarter of operation.4 Pricing is valid for 30 days from the date above.
Annotated review
7 calloutsPage-faithful view of your document. Highlights and callouts mark review findings only — not automatic edits.
Stated total investment does not match line-item breakdown
The stated total investment is $48,000, but the listed components are Software licensing $22,000, Implementation services $18,000, and Training and enablement $12,000, which total $52,000. This is a direct internal financial inconsistency in the proposal.
Scope sentence has unclear referents and a potentially inverted approval sequence
The sentence uses 'it' twice without a clear antecedent and appears to say Northwind will integrate before the client approves the plan. In a scope-of-work section, that ambiguity can create disagreement about what is being integrated and what approval is required before implementation proceeds.
Project start date conflicts with kickoff timing
The proposal says the project begins in Q2 2025 but also references a March 2026 kickoff with go-live four months later. A 2025 start cannot precede a 2026 kickoff.
Unqualified performance guarantee creates contractual risk
The proposal guarantees a specific 40% reduction in dispatch errors. An unconditional numeric guarantee in a client-facing document can become a binding commitment and a source of liability if the outcome is not met.
Duplicate word
The phrase repeats the word 'the'.
Subject–verb agreement
'The team' is singular and takes 'is'.
Spelling correction
'recieve' is misspelled.
Issues checklist
0 of 7 reviewedIssue 1: Stated total investment does not match line-item breakdown
Issue 2: Scope sentence has unclear referents and a potentially inverted approval sequence
Issue 3: Project start date conflicts with kickoff timing
Issue 4: Unqualified performance guarantee creates contractual risk
Issue 5: Duplicate word
Issue 6: Subject–verb agreement
Issue 7: Spelling correction
Recensa Proof Report
Document check report
Independent document check — verify important facts before you send, sign, or file.
Executive summary
Three reviewers checked the document independently and reached full agreement. Accepted findings: one critical investment-total inconsistency, a major unqualified performance-guarantee risk, a major scope and approval ambiguity, a major timeline inconsistency, and minor grammar and spelling corrections. No supporting evidence files were supplied, so external factual corrections should be confirmed before final edits.
Issues by severity
Readiness summary
Human review recommended.
Findings overview
| Severity | Count |
|---|---|
| Critical | 1 |
| Major | 3 |
| Minor | 3 |
| Small note | 0 |
| Formatting | 0 |
Suggested edits: 6 · Unresolved queue: 6
Model agreement
- Models that completed the review: 3 of 3
- All three models agreed: Yes
- Ran with fewer than three models: No
- Open disagreements between models: 0
Visual fidelity
Mode: page_faithful_pdf · Base: main.pdf
Finding confidence — Verified: 0 · Likely: 0 · Needs human review: 7
Sample: sample_proposal.pdf · 7 findings · 3 of 3 models agreed. This is the exact output structure you receive on every review.
Run your own check
Ready to check your own document?
Bring a finished DOCX or PDF and get the same three deliverables for your document.