Six places a wrong answer costs more than a right one.

Each is supported by domain-tuned routing, a panel matched to the field, and a body of real-world verifications you can audit.

// CLAIMS · ADVERSARIAL FACT-CHECK

Every assertion. Adversarially tested. Cited or flagged.

Insurance claims, scientific manuscripts, market sizing memos, regulatory filings. Anywhere a specific number or named source matters, BRIDGE checks if the claim survives challenge.

REVIEW CYCLE2.1×
FALSE-NEG. RATE0.4%
AVG CONFIDENCE91.6%
VERIFY CLAIMS
xr7-cohort-study.txt · FLAGGED78.4%
The new XR-7 imaging protocol reduces patient radiation exposure by 47% [citation needed] compared to standard CT while maintaining diagnostic accuracy above 92% 96%. In our cohort of 1,200 patients (824 unique imaging episodes), no false-negative diagnoses recorded over 18 months [follow-up rate not specified].
4 FINDINGS · 2 APPLIED · 4/5 AGREED · 2 ROUNDS
78.4%

Citation missing. Accuracy over-stated (92.3% in cited data). Cohort/episode conflation. Follow-up rate unspecified.

// PROBLEMS BRIDGE CATCHES

Three patterns BRIDGE breaks open.

01UNCITED NUMBERS

Quantitative claims without source

The "47% reduction" that no model can trace. Most common defect in scientific and marketing copy.

02OVERSTATEMENT

Cherry-picked metrics

"Accuracy above 96%" when the cited paper reports 92%. BRIDGE reconciles the claim to source.

03METHOD GAP

Missing methodology disclosures

Sample size without unique-N. Zero false-negatives without follow-up rate. Sounds rigorous; isn't.

Run a verification.
See what we catch.

START NOW Talk to enterprise