@document_analysis/literature_review
no model is a reliable source of truth for citation accuracy
I need to synthesize findings across 40 research papers
synthesize@document_analysis/literature_review
Opus 4.8 for cross-paper argument mapping. Sonnet 4.6 for batch individual summaries. All citations must be traced to source.
cross-paper synthesis, identifying contradictions, thematic mapping
claude/opus-4.8batch summarization of individual papers, cost-sensitive
claude/sonnet-4.6any citation will appear in published work
human| ID | Relation | Actor | Result | Output |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT-D5-001 | synthesize@cross_paper | claude/opus-4.8 | accepted | strongest for cross-document argument synthesis; maintains thread across sources |
| CT-D5-002 | synthesize@cross_paper | claude/sonnet-4.6 | bounded | strong on individual paper summaries; cross-paper coherence weaker |
| CT-D5-003 | validate@citation | openai/gpt-5.5 | rejected | high hallucination risk on specific citations |
Opus 4.8 leads BrowseComp locating hard-to-find information online
Anthropic Opus 4.6 release / 4.8 confirmationAll current models require citation verification for literature review
inferred from hallucination data + general LLM behavior