# Read review citations

A cited passage lets you inspect the source supporting a proposal. Open the review's evidence view and choose the cited document. Read the quote with its surrounding text rather than approving solely because a citation marker is present.

## Captured content

The evidence view reads the retained captured document. It does not silently substitute the current mutable original. Check the capture and source revision when comparing a citation with another copy of the file.

HTML review evidence preserves document order, including tables between surrounding paragraphs. Inserted and deleted text retain their revision context. A statement marked as deleted should not be read as though it were current operative text merely because its words appear in the source.

Explicit page-number gaps can be retained as structural evidence, but numbers mentioned in ordinary prose do not automatically become document pagination. Use the available source coordinates and context instead of inferring location from an arbitrary number.

## Interpretation remains a review task

A quote can be accurately located while its meaning is wrong for the proposal. Check which party, period, definition, unit, condition, or exception it describes. Repeated similar passages can refer to different subjects.

A captured hash confirms byte identity; it does not prove the source's truth or the model's domain interpretation. OCR and extracted text can also need comparison with the original layout.

## Unavailable evidence

If the capture cannot be verified or the cited passage cannot be read, treat the support as unavailable. Do not replace it with today's file and assume the prior proposal is thereby validated. Capture and review a new basis if that is the intended correction.

See [source capture](/docs/reviews/sources-and-capture), [history](/docs/reviews/history-and-receipts), and [generation](/docs/reviews/generation-and-proposals).