Reference verification service

An MVP, or minimum viable product, is the smallest version that your users can actually work with. It is not a cheap version of the full solution. It is a test, built to answer the questions that decide whether the rest is worth building.

1. Pick the riskiest assumption. Here: will research publishers and manuscript authors use it to solve "references may be incorrect or fail to support claims"?
2. Build only what tests it. One team, one use case, a few core modules. People do the rest by hand for now.
3. Run a paid pilot. Have a qualified reviewer independently assess the same sample.
4. Measure, then decide. Track confirmed citation defects and false alarms. Then expand, change course or stop, with evidence instead of opinions.

MVP scope for this solution. Begin with research publishers and manuscript authors and one recurring use case. Build the first two modules: resolve bibliographic records; check quoted text. Provide operator assistance for the third module: inspect claim support. Deliver reference verification report through a manual review queue. Perform other necessary full-scope functions manually during the pilot. Include all applicable access, accuracy and professional-review controls from the start.

After the MVP. After paid pilots establish value, automate the remaining modules: flag unavailable sources; identify retraction notices when supplied; record reviewer decisions. Add one validated source integration, reusable customer configuration and recurring delivery. Expand to additional teams, document formats or languages only after testing the new scope.

What the build depends on. Evidence coordinates, versioned rules, reviewer decisions and a representative reference set. Measure misses as well as confirmed findings before scaling.

Pricing to test

Test USD 500-2,000 for a defined audit sample and report. Offer recurring review priced by reviewed items and specialist hours. Software-only access can follow a reliable reviewed service. All prices require validation.

Message to test

Reference verification service for research publishers and manuscript authors. Checks both reference identity and the associated factual claim. Demonstrate the claim through an annotated reference audit of one manuscript section.

Where to find buyers

Academic editing companies

Lead magnet

An annotated reference audit of one manuscript section

The first 30 days

1. Week 1: interview five prospective buyers in this segment: research publishers and manuscript authors. Ask to see a recent example of the problem and their current process.
2. Week 2: prepare this demonstration using authorized or synthetic material: an annotated reference audit of one manuscript section.
3. Week 3: present it through academic editing companies and seek one narrowly scoped paid pilot.
4. Week 4: review confirmed citation defects, false alarms, total delivery effort and a concrete renewal decision before increasing scope.

Paid pilot

Have a qualified reviewer independently assess the same sample. Compare confirmed findings, false alarms and omissions. Repeat on unseen material before agreeing recurring volume. For this solution, use manuscripts, bibliographies and accessible original sources and evaluate reference verification report. Agree success thresholds with the buyer before starting; collect a baseline for confirmed citation defects, false alarms. A positive signal is payment and repeat use with acceptable quality and delivery cost, not a favorable demo reaction alone.

Success metrics

Confirmed citation defects, false alarms

Retention and expansion

Offer recurring reviews and rechecks of previously confirmed issues. Expand document or case types after validating the new rubric with qualified reviewers.

Why clients would pick it

A domain-specific review rubric and rights-cleared examples of confirmed defects, false alarms and reviewer reasoning. For this solution, build around checks both reference identity and the associated factual claim. This advantage requires execution and accumulated customer trust; the base model alone is not a defensible asset.

Alternatives and positioning

Manual reviewers, checklists, generic scanning tools and specialist audit services. Differentiate on this specific proposed advantage: checks both reference identity and the associated factual claim. Test it against the buyer's current method on the same task. Competitor coverage and uniqueness have not been established.

Main delivery costs

Document or media processing, model evaluation, expert review, false-positive handling, rechecks and customer-specific rubric calibration.