---
title: "Comment by Ahmet Özel on \"How to Validate Gemini Grounding With Evidence Contracts\" | Hashnode"
description: "\"A citation may support a nearby sentence rather than the claim the user cares about\" is the failure worth building around, because it survives every check that"
url: "https://hashnode.com/posts/how-to-validate-gemini-grounding-with-evidence-contracts/6aaec8471f6e997a0b2426b8/comment/6ab04762bbcf7546736710cf"
---

[Discussion](https://hashnode.com/posts/how-to-validate-gemini-grounding-with-evidence-contracts/6aaec8471f6e997a0b2426b8)

Comment [How to Validate Gemini Grounding With Evidence Contracts](https://hashnode.com/posts/how-to-validate-gemini-grounding-with-evidence-contracts/6aaec8471f6e997a0b2426b8)

[Ahmet Özel](https://hashnode.com/@ahmetozel)

[Sep 20](https://hashnode.com/posts/how-to-validate-gemini-grounding-with-evidence-contracts/6aaec8471f6e997a0b2426b8/comment/6ab04762bbcf7546736710cf)

"A citation may support a nearby sentence rather than the claim the user cares about" is the failure worth building around, because it survives every check that only asks whether citations exist.

The part I would make explicit in the contract is the unit of attachment. A citation on a whole paragraph is nearly unfalsifiable, while a citation on a single claim can actually be verified with an entailment check.

The stale-source case deserves its own clause too. A document being authoritative and a retrieved passage being current are independent properties, and only the second one degrades on its own while nobody is looking at it.