Source & Attribution
Citation behavior is inconsistent across all products audited. Inconsistent citation is a worse trust signal than no citation — users cannot build a reliable mental model of when to verify.
Problem
Citations exist to give users the information they need to verify claims independently. Inconsistent citation behavior — sometimes citing, sometimes not, for claims of equivalent credibility — is a more serious trust problem than no citation at all. It teaches users the presence of a citation is not a reliable signal.
Prescription
Four requirements: consistency (cite all comparable claims or none), inline connection (each citation badge links a specific claim to a specific source), accessibility (source content visible in panel without leaving the interface), and resolution (citations go to specific excerpts, not homepages). Source Inspector slides in on citation click.
Design decisions
Inline numbered badges over superscripts — more accessible, more visible, harder to miss. Click-to-open vs. always-visible panel — on-demand reduces clutter for casual reading while preserving full verifiability. Source cards show excerpt, credibility signals, and match type without requiring a click-through.
Tradeoffs
Consistent citation increases response length and visual complexity. The Source Inspector panel takes horizontal space — most appropriate for research-oriented contexts. Inline badges interrupt reading flow slightly more than superscripts, trading readability for accessibility.
Pattern definition
Problem
Citations exist to give users the information they need to verify claims independently. Inconsistent citation behavior — sometimes citing, sometimes not, for claims of equivalent credibility — is a more serious trust problem than no citation at all. It teaches users the presence of a citation is not a reliable signal.
Prescription
Four requirements: consistency (cite all comparable claims or none), inline connection (each citation badge links a specific claim to a specific source), accessibility (source content visible in panel without leaving the interface), and resolution (citations go to specific excerpts, not homepages). Source Inspector slides in on citation click.
Design decisions
Inline numbered badges over superscripts — more accessible, more visible, harder to miss. Click-to-open vs. always-visible panel — on-demand reduces clutter for casual reading while preserving full verifiability. Source cards show excerpt, credibility signals, and match type without requiring a click-through.
Tradeoffs
Consistent citation increases response length and visual complexity. The Source Inspector panel takes horizontal space — most appropriate for research-oriented contexts. Inline badges interrupt reading flow slightly more than superscripts, trading readability for accessibility.
Interactive demo
Audit finding
Perplexity cites 94% of responses with 8.2 sources on average — highest in the audit. ChatGPT and Claude cite inconsistently: sometimes attributing, sometimes presenting identical claim types with no source. Inconsistent citation is a worse trust signal than no citation — users cannot build a reliable mental model of when to verify. The citation quality risk identified was absent attribution, not false attribution.
Click any numbered citation to open the Source Inspector. The ! marker indicates a claim with no external source.
All states
Claim directly supported by a specific passage in the cited source.
Claim derived from multiple sources or paraphrased. Source still indicated.
No external source available. Drawn from parametric memory. Absence is a deliberate signal, not an interface gap.