Trust and verification
Public status labels show what checking has been applied.
AutoDots publishes review status, methodology, and benchmark summaries so users can distinguish between workflow output and checked public samples.
Latest published evidence
3/3
Latest published quality gate passed without hard failures.
Run date: 3/31/2026
Published gate
core
Current public benchmark profile.
Cases checked
3
Repository-controlled fixtures used in the latest published run.
Runtime
2.8s
End-to-end runtime for the published gate.
Checklist
2026.03
Current publication checklist version.
Public status labels
Every public sample carries a defined status.
Draft
Draft output
Useful for checking workflow fit, but not yet human-reviewed by the AutoDots team.
Current public count: 2
Reviewed
Reviewed sample
A team member has checked the sample against the source and recorded known limitations.
Current public count: 3
Verified
Verified catalogue entry
Approved against the current checklist version and ready for catalogue publication.
Current public count: 0
How evidence is produced
Methodology
Public trust data is generated from benchmark and quality-gate reports, then paired with reviewed sample metadata before publication.
- Benchmark summaries are generated from repository-controlled fixtures rather than customer files.
- We publish high-level pass and runtime summaries, not raw prompts, private outputs, or internal implementation detail.
- The public trust pages describe workflow methodology, review posture, and known limitations rather than internal vendor or model choices.
Evidence summary
Runtime and quality checks are reviewed internally before publication.
Public promotion rules
Reviewed
- A team member compares the sample against the source and checks the main reading flow.
- Known limitations are written down before the sample is published.
Verified
- The reviewed checks pass again on the current pipeline version.
- The sample clears the current checklist version and is approved for catalogue publication.
When review is required
- Any document that will be issued as an official exam, compliance artifact, or embosser-ready final.
- Outputs containing dense notation, multi-part diagrams, or large tables.
- Any case where the source itself is ambiguous, incomplete, or image-heavy.
Known limitations
- Poor scans, handwriting, and dense layout PDFs can still require manual correction.
- Mathematics, chemistry, and exam papers remain review-required even when the technical path succeeds.
- Visual descriptions use source context where available, but labelled diagrams may still need human checking.
Next step
Review examples before relying on the workflow.
The examples page shows draft and reviewed output. The catalogue contains only entries that have cleared the current publication checklist.