Mafalda Pereira
Back to workProject 01 · Case study 01 of 06

Evidence strategy · AI evaluation

AI-assisted research workflow

I built the bibliography and technology benchmark that grounded an AI-assisted research workflow, then validated its outputs against the source evidence.

My role
Created the source base and benchmark, defined the review criteria, and checked generated material for accuracy, completeness and traceability.
Study scope
Bibliography, technology benchmark and evidence validation
Methods
Structured literature review · Benchmarking · Evidence validation

The research question

Which parts of the generated guidance were reliable enough to support research work, and which still required expert review?

Fluent output could still omit conditions, overstate a source or combine claims with different levels of support. The review therefore had to make the path from claim to evidence visible.

How I approached it

From question to evidence

  1. 01 / Ground

    Build the evidence base before evaluating the output

    I assembled and organised the bibliography and technology benchmark used to ground the workflow.

  2. 02 / Structure

    Define what a defensible answer needed to contain

    I separated technical capability, research evidence, limitations and open questions so they could be reviewed consistently.

  3. 03 / Validate

    Trace claims back to the material reviewed

    I corrected mismatched or incomplete references and documented where stronger evidence or researcher judgement was still needed.

How I organised the evidence

A review built around provenance, coverage and claim strength

I reviewed the answer and its evidence as separate objects. That prevented a well-written response from receiving more confidence than its sources justified.

Recreated analysis structure
  1. 01

    Provenance

    Where the claim came from

    Each important statement was checked against the relevant scientific source or primary technical documentation.

  2. 02

    Coverage

    What the answer included or omitted

    I looked for missing conditions, limitations and steps that could change how the guidance was used.

  3. 03

    Claim strength

    What the evidence actually allowed us to say

    Claims were distinguished as supported, incomplete or requiring stronger independent validation.

What I delivered

A grounded evidence base, benchmark and validation record

I delivered a consolidated source base and a traceable review of the generated material, showing what could be retained, corrected or investigated further.