Loading documentation
Research Desk
Deal Center
Library
Loading
The Technical Audit workflow is for academic researchers who want a precision-first check before a manuscript is submitted, circulated, or presented.
Where the Referee Report workflow asks whether the paper is persuasive as scholarship, Technical Audit asks whether the manuscript holds together technically. It looks for the quiet defects that can weaken a paper even when the idea is strong: missing assumptions, table-text mismatches, notation drift, inconsistent references, unsupported statistical claims, and proof steps that do not follow as written.
Use it when the manuscript is close enough to submission that internal consistency matters.
Upload a PDF, Word document, LaTeX source, ZIP project, or pasted manuscript text. Corbis builds a structured view of the manuscript, extracts checkable claims, runs specialist audit passes, verifies the findings, and returns a severity-ranked technical report.
The workflow focuses on:
The report is meant to be actionable. Each useful finding should tell you what is wrong, where it appears, why it matters, and what to change.
Technical Audit uses a different agent graph from Referee Report. It is not trying to judge novelty or contribution. It is trying to reduce preventable technical risk.
This structure keeps the audit focused. A statistical specification issue should not be buried under prose advice, and a broken reference should not crowd out a major mathematical defect.
Load sources
Corbis accepts manuscript files or pasted text. LaTeX source gives the workflow more structure for equations, labels, cross-references, and table logic. PDF and Word uploads are still useful, but source files usually provide better technical coverage.
Map the manuscript
The workflow builds a document manifest: sections, equations, tables, notation, theorem-like objects, references, and candidate claims. This gives the auditors a structured map rather than a single unorganized text block.
Audit in parallel
Specialist auditors examine math, statistics, data/table consistency, notation, and cross-document consistency. Each pass is designed to produce concrete findings anchored to a location in the manuscript.
Verify and prioritize
Candidate findings are challenged, filtered, deduplicated, and sorted. The final report favors fewer, stronger findings over a long list of vague recommendations.
Export the audit
The completed audit is saved with the run and can be reopened later. Where export actions are available, the report can be downloaded for revision planning or coauthor review.
Technical Audit is useful when you want to catch issues that are hard to see after weeks or months inside the same draft.
It is especially useful for:
The workflow is designed to help authors remove avoidable objections before a referee, discussant, or seminar audience finds them first.
Technical Audit is not a novelty review, literature review, or acceptance prediction.
It also does not guarantee that:
For a broader scholarly assessment, use Referee Report. For flexible research exploration, use chat or Projects. For the full catalog, see Guide to Structured Workflows.
Use the richest source you can provide.
Best inputs:
.tex file and included source files.tex manuscript sourceGood optional context includes:
The workflow works best when the manuscript is already a serious draft. If the paper is still early and the main question is whether the research idea is promising, start with Referee Report or chat instead.
Choose Technical Audit when the central question is:
What technical issues would embarrass or weaken this manuscript if they reached a referee?
Choose Referee Report when the central question is:
Does the paper make a convincing scholarly contribution, and where would a referee push back?
Used together, the two workflows cover different risks: Technical Audit reduces internal correctness risk; Referee Report evaluates the paper's contribution, argument, and revision priorities.
The Technical Audit workflow is for academic researchers who want a precision-first check before a manuscript is submitted, circulated, or presented.
Where the Referee Report workflow asks whether the paper is persuasive as scholarship, Technical Audit asks whether the manuscript holds together technically. It looks for the quiet defects that can weaken a paper even when the idea is strong: missing assumptions, table-text mismatches, notation drift, inconsistent references, unsupported statistical claims, and proof steps that do not follow as written.
Use it when the manuscript is close enough to submission that internal consistency matters.
Upload a PDF, Word document, LaTeX source, ZIP project, or pasted manuscript text. Corbis builds a structured view of the manuscript, extracts checkable claims, runs specialist audit passes, verifies the findings, and returns a severity-ranked technical report.
The workflow focuses on:
The report is meant to be actionable. Each useful finding should tell you what is wrong, where it appears, why it matters, and what to change.
Technical Audit uses a different agent graph from Referee Report. It is not trying to judge novelty or contribution. It is trying to reduce preventable technical risk.
This structure keeps the audit focused. A statistical specification issue should not be buried under prose advice, and a broken reference should not crowd out a major mathematical defect.
Load sources
Corbis accepts manuscript files or pasted text. LaTeX source gives the workflow more structure for equations, labels, cross-references, and table logic. PDF and Word uploads are still useful, but source files usually provide better technical coverage.
Map the manuscript
The workflow builds a document manifest: sections, equations, tables, notation, theorem-like objects, references, and candidate claims. This gives the auditors a structured map rather than a single unorganized text block.
Audit in parallel
Specialist auditors examine math, statistics, data/table consistency, notation, and cross-document consistency. Each pass is designed to produce concrete findings anchored to a location in the manuscript.
Verify and prioritize
Candidate findings are challenged, filtered, deduplicated, and sorted. The final report favors fewer, stronger findings over a long list of vague recommendations.
Export the audit
The completed audit is saved with the run and can be reopened later. Where export actions are available, the report can be downloaded for revision planning or coauthor review.
Technical Audit is useful when you want to catch issues that are hard to see after weeks or months inside the same draft.
It is especially useful for:
The workflow is designed to help authors remove avoidable objections before a referee, discussant, or seminar audience finds them first.
Technical Audit is not a novelty review, literature review, or acceptance prediction.
It also does not guarantee that:
For a broader scholarly assessment, use Referee Report. For flexible research exploration, use chat or Projects. For the full catalog, see Guide to Structured Workflows.
Use the richest source you can provide.
Best inputs:
.tex file and included source files.tex manuscript sourceGood optional context includes:
The workflow works best when the manuscript is already a serious draft. If the paper is still early and the main question is whether the research idea is promising, start with Referee Report or chat instead.
Choose Technical Audit when the central question is:
What technical issues would embarrass or weaken this manuscript if they reached a referee?
Choose Referee Report when the central question is:
Does the paper make a convincing scholarly contribution, and where would a referee push back?
Used together, the two workflows cover different risks: Technical Audit reduces internal correctness risk; Referee Report evaluates the paper's contribution, argument, and revision priorities.