Search ยท Technical

Citation Audits for RAG: Spot-Checking Grounding and Fixing Misattribution

Amestris — Boutique AI & Technology Consultancy

Citations are one of the strongest trust tools in RAG. They can also become a trust liability when they are wrong. A citation that does not support the claim is worse than no citation: it signals false confidence and makes users doubt the entire system.

A citation audit is a lightweight, repeatable process for verifying that citations actually support the statements they are attached to. It also creates a feedback loop for improving retrieval, chunking and answer policies.

Define what "good citation" means

Start with explicit criteria. A citation is "good" when it satisfies:

  • Support. The cited source contains the fact or rule stated.
  • Specificity. The cited snippet is specific enough to verify the claim.
  • Correct scope. The citation matches the timeframe, region and policy scope implied by the answer.
  • Permissions. The user is entitled to the cited source (see permissions design).

Structured citation formats make audits easier because you can reference IDs and snippets deterministically (see structured citations).

Build a small audit sampling strategy

You do not need to audit everything. Sample intentionally:

  • Top intents. The most common user queries.
  • High-risk topics. Policies, security, compliance and finance.
  • New content. Recently ingested sources and recently changed prompts.
  • Low-confidence paths. Answers that barely passed an answerability gate (see answerability gates).

For each sampled answer, store the question, retrieved results, final answer, citations and version metadata (prompt/retrieval configs).

Use claim-to-source checks

A practical audit workflow is claim-based:

  1. Extract the key claims in the answer (3-8 is usually enough).
  2. For each claim, check whether the cited source supports it.
  3. Label outcomes: supported, unsupported, ambiguous, or wrong-scope.

This approach avoids debating style and focuses on verifiability.

Common citation failure modes (and fixes)

Citation problems are often systematic. Common patterns:

  • Misattribution. The model cites a nearby document but uses facts from memory. Fix with stricter grounding prompts and citation rules.
  • Snippet mismatch. The cited chunk is too broad or missing the relevant sentence. Fix with better chunking and snippet extraction.
  • Wrong scope. The citation is correct, but for a different region/timeframe. Fix by adding metadata filters and freshness checks.
  • Retrieval miss. The right source was not retrieved. Fix retrieval ranking and query orchestration (see query orchestration).

When failures happen, use a structured diagnosis workflow (see RAG root cause analysis).

Turn audits into regression gates

Citation audits are most valuable when they protect you from regressions:

  • Add the audited examples to a golden set.
  • Run them in a benchmark harness on every change (see RAG benchmark harness).
  • Fail the release if supported-claim rates drop below your threshold.

Reliable citations are not just a UI feature. They are an operational discipline that improves grounding, reduces hallucinations and makes users more willing to rely on the system.

Quick answers

What does this article cover?

How to audit RAG citations with sampling and claim-to-source checks, and how to fix common misattribution patterns.

Who is this for?

Teams operating RAG assistants who want higher trust by ensuring citations genuinely support the claims in answers.

If this topic is relevant to an initiative you are considering, Amestris can provide independent advice or architecture support. Contact hello@amestris.com.au.