CiteReader
A research assistant that answers your question, then numbers every claim and lets you click each one to see the exact passage it came from—so you can verify before you trust.
Journalists, law clerks, and student researchers who use AI summaries but can't afford to be wrong
- Inline citation numbers beside every claim in the AI's answer with one-click jump to the source sentence
- Coverage badge that flags when the answer relies on only part of the available evidence (the 'missing support chain' problem from the underlying research)
- Side-by-side compare mode that shows alternative phrasings of the answer when evidence supports more than one interpretation
- Export to annotated PDF with citations baked in for briefs, study notes, or fact-check workflows
AI summaries are everywhere but hallucinations and dropped sources are still the reason professionals don't fully trust them; the underlying research shows readers can't even detect when evidence is incomplete—they need the interface that surfaces it.
Elicit alone reports 2M+ researchers using AI research tools; CJR found 1 in 4 Americans now use AI in place of search, and dedicated AI-verification guides for journalists exist, signaling real pain.Elicit Pricing & Plans [2026] ↗AI Search Has a Citation Problem - Columbia Journalism Review ↗
Extremely crowded: Perplexity, Elicit, Consensus, Scite, Scholise, Truessay, Ricerva, Paperguide, Atlas all already advertise cited/verifiable sources; the pass-through claim-to-passage highlight is a thin differentiator competitors can copy.Best AI Research Tools 2026: Perplexity vs Consensus vs Elicit vs Scite ↗7 Best AI Research Assistants (2026): Hallucination-Verified ↗
Proven willingness to pay: Elicit Pro $49/user/mo, Scale $169/user/mo, Perplexity Pro $20/mo with 600+ Pro searches/day — clear SaaS pricing tiers already accepted by researchers.Best AI Research Tools 2026: Perplexity vs Consensus vs Elicit vs Scite ↗
Hallucination concerns and citation accuracy are durable structural issues (documented by CJR and Harvard Misinformation Review); the 'evidence interface' research supports a long-term shift toward verification-first design.AI Search Has a Citation Problem - Columbia Journalism Review ↗New sources of inaccuracy? A conceptual framework for studying AI hallucinations ↗
Buildable with existing RAG + LLM APIs but requires a curated source corpus per vertical (news/legal/academic) and careful passage-granular citation mapping; non-trivial engineering, not a weekend project.AI Citation Hallucinations: Verify Fake References (2026) ↗