Yila AI

Description

A literature review falls apart when notes, PDFs, and slides live in different places and nobody can see which sentence came from which paper. An evidence-traceable research agent is meant to sit inside an academic research workspace so that PDF analysis, figure drafts, and academic slides stay tied to the sources a researcher actually opened. This note is a practical checklist for that kind of workflow. It does not invent study results, and it does not attach fake citations to a product description. What evidence-traceable should mean before you trust a draft Traceable, in this setting, means a claim in a draft can be walked back to a passage, table, or figure in a source the researcher supplied or retrieved. It does not mean the software is a coauthor, and it does not mean every fluent sentence is correct. A useful academic research workspace makes the source visible next to the sentence, keeps the original file available, and lets a person edit the output. If a tool fills a bibliography with papers that were never retrieved, that is a failure of the workflow, not a shortcut. The check is simple: every reference in the draft should correspond to a document you can open. Start the literature review from a question, not from a pile of tabs Begin with one research question written in a sentence a colleague could disagree with. Add the constraints you already know: years, population, method, language, and what you will not cover. Then collect sources in a way you can audit. A paper link, a DOI you resolved yourself, or a PDF you uploaded is a better start than a vague prompt that says "summarize the field." Search results are a list to screen, not a finished review. For each candidate paper, record why it is in or out. That screening note is part of the method, even when