RecensaRecensa home
Recensa

Multi-model review

Recensa runs three independent reviewers in parallel on the same finished DOCX or PDF—on Claude, GPT, and Gemini—covering three distinct review roles: author intent and voice, skeptical claims and citations, and structure and consistency. An arbiter reconciles their findings into one issue ledger for your Proof Report.

Last updated 2026-05-14

At a glance

How this fits your process

  • Use this when

    Important DOCX or PDF files need three independent reviewer perspectives—on Claude, GPT, and Gemini, covering author intent and voice, skeptical claims and citations, and structure and consistency—before send or sign.

  • Output

    Arbiter-reconciled issue ledger with labeled reviewer disagreement and Proof Report exports.

  • You verify

    Yes—disposition severity, facts, and regulated language.

  • Related

    Issue Ledger, Proof Report, Methodology.

How it runs

How multi-model review runs

How to use

  1. 01

    Upload file

    Same finished DOCX or PDF

  2. 02

    Three reviewers

    Claude, GPT, Gemini—parallel; three distinct roles

  3. 03

    Arbiter merge

    Reconciled issue ledger; disagreement labeled

  4. 04

    Triage

    Your disposition

  5. 05

    Proof Report

    Export record

Details

Learn more

Why it existsEach reviewer specializes in a different failure type.

Because reviewers are assigned distinct roles—author intent and voice preservation, skeptical claim and citation checking, structural and formatting consistency—they surface different kinds of issues. A voice break, a missed citation-year error, and a formatting inconsistency are different failure modes—not three opinions on the same sentence. An arbiter reconciles their findings into one issue ledger instead of leaving your team to merge separate chat threads by hand.

When it matters mostHigh-stakes memos and long files.
  • Agreements where a missed ambiguity becomes expensive after send or sign.
  • Long PDF or DOCX files where a single pass cannot cover every section with equal care.
Reviewer agreementAdditional reconciliation when reviewers disagree—does not remove judgment.

When reviewers disagree, the system can run additional reconciliation passes (when configured) to narrow the split into a clearer record—reviewer agreement you can act on. It narrows disagreement; it does not replace your judgment on what still matters. When reviewers differ, the ledger shows where and why—not a silent “looks fine.”

Limits and manual verificationPartial runs, missing evidence, and your follow-up.
  • Reviewers cannot verify facts that are not in the file or attached evidence.
  • When one reviewer’s provider is unavailable, the remaining reviewers still carry the Document Check—you lose redundancy, not the core check—and partial status is labeled honestly. Coverage is not identical to a full three-reviewer run.
  • Severity mapping, citations, numbers, and dates still need your verification.

Run a Document Check

Try this on a finished DOCX or PDF—triage the issue ledger before any edits.

Run a Document Check