No Digg Deeper questions have been answered for this story yet.
In fact, there's a reason that hunting for flaws with deep, uniform coverage (as Refine does) is a pretty good way to screen for significant flaws.
At least with research done in good faith, authors have typically been down the "main line" of a resarch document many times.
2/
More generally, we can think of a research paper as a structure whose robustness can be tested, and to analyze what, empirically, are the most effective ways to do that.
Learning about and optimizing that process is what we specialize in @RefineDotInk
4/
So if a flaw is on the main line, it's likelier to be very subtle.
But secondary discussions and anlyses often receive less author attention, and are in some sense more informative about what's lkely to be rough.
And pulling on those threads stress-tests the project.
3/
@RefineDotInk But we are also mindful of the risks of "over-diligence" in terms of authors' time, and welcome a conversation about how we can develop practices around how to protect authors' time.
(Obviously, efficient AI-driven correction workflows are a part of this.)
5/5